CHHAGANLAL UDERAM GOUR Vs. SOBHARAM HARISHANKAR GOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal arising out of a suit brought by the respondent No. 1, Sobharam Harishankar Gour, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Andheri, for a declaration that he was the owner of a one-third share in the income derived from two temples of Vithoba and Lakshminarayan at Malode in the Bassein taluka of the Thana District, for an injunction against defendants Nos. 1 and 5, the present appellants, permanently restraining them from obstructing the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the suit property according to his turn, and for awarding him a certain amount for the loss sustained by him through his having been deprived of his turn by the appellants. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it fell within the purview of Section 92 of the Civil P. C., and that the consent of the Advocate General had not been obtained as required under that section. The lower appellate Court allowed the plaintiff's claim holding that Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code did not apply. The only question before us is whether Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, applies to this case.

(2.) It is not disputed that the temples are public temples and not the private properties of the family of the plaintiff and the defendants. There is a cash allowance payable to them from the Government Treasury.

(3.) An attempt has been made on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff to show that the appointment of the pujari is not made by Government and that the rights of the pujari belonged to the plaintiff and the defendants. That this contention is not correct and that the appointment of the pujari is made subject to the approval of Government appear from the admission of the plaintiff himself. It has been stated by him that the temples were public and not private, that it was Government who decided that after Jadhavbai's death the puja should be performed by Mahidhar, that after Mahidhar's death the plaintiff as well as defendants Nos. 1 and 5 applied to the Collector to register their names as worshippers, and that the name of defendant No. 1 was entered as worshipper in the Collector's office. We must, therefore, hold that the temples are a public trust and that defendant No. 1 alone has been appointed or recognised by Government as pujari.