DAKOR TEMPLE COMMITTEE Vs. SHANKERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of an order made by the District Judge, Nadiad, in a darkhast application made to enforce two decrees, one passed in Suit No. 23 of 1880 and the other passed in Suit No. 18 of 1887. The first suit was instituted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code in the District Court at Ahmedabad against the sevaks or pujaris of the temple of Shri Ranchhodraiji at Dakor by some of the gors of the said temple and one M.G. Tambekar. There was a first appeal to the High Court which decided that the properties in suit were of a public, charitable and religious trust, that the sevaks were merely trustees and servants of the temple, and that they were accountable for all the properties in their hands. It directed the District Judge of Ahmedabad to take accounts, appoint a receiver, and frame a scheme for future management. (Manohar Ganesh Tambekar V/s. Lakshmiram Govindram (1887) I.L.R. 12 Bom. 247) This decree was confirmed by the Privy Council (Chotalal V/s. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar (1899) I.L.R. 24 Bom. 50 Suit No. 18 of 1887 was also decided in the District Court at Ahmedabad. It was brought by the gors of the temple against the sevaks for a declaration of their rights and for an injunction. It was first instituted in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Umreth. As the valuation exceeded Rs. 5,000, it was thereafter filed in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad who had jurisdiction at that date over the Kaira and Panch Mahal Districts as well as the Ahmedabad District. Thereafter it was transferred to the Assistant Judge, and he decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs in 1888. There was a first appeal to the High Court which confirmed the original decree with slight modifications. (Kalidas Jivram V/s. Gor Parjaram Hirji (1890) I.L.R. 15 Bom. 309).

(2.) The scheme which the District Judge had been directed to frame in Suit No. 23 of 1880 having been framed by him, there were appeals to the High Court and the scheme was ultimately settled by the High Court and confirmed by the Privy Council in 1912. (Sevak Kirpashankar V/s. Gopalrao (1912) 15 Bom. L.R. 13, P.C.). Under the scheme the sevaks were removed from the management of the trust and a committee called the Dakor Temple Committee was appointed for the management of the trust property and the temple. Rules which were made by the Committee formed part of the scheme.

(3.) The present darkhast is filed by the gors against the Temple Committee and its members for execution of the decree passed in Suits Nos. 23 of 1880 and 18 of 1887. In the written statement of the Dakor Temple Committee numerous objections) to the darkhast application were made, one of which, No. 2, was as to the jurisdiction of the District Court to entertain and hear the application. Eleven issues were framed out of which the learned District Judge decided six, i.e., issues Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, by recording findings thereon. Issue No. 8 was : " Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the present application ? " And the finding on this issue was : " No. It must be sent to the proper Court." The learned Judge held that the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nadiad was the proper Court to entertain and hear the application ; and made the following order : " As the return of the darkhast for presentation to the proper Court will be a mere waste of time and money to the parties, I order the darkhast to be transferred to the said Court."