RAO SOBHAG SINGH Vs. THAKUR BAKHTAWARSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. There is a temple dedicated to Shri Onkarji at Mandhata. It is visited by Hindus from all parts of the country and they make offerings at the shrine. The offerings are taken by the Raja of Mandhata, the present applicant. One Thakur Bakhtawar Singh, the non-applicant, applied to the First Class Magistrate as follows: I have been enjoying the 8 annas income of the entire temple of Shri "Onkarji" for the last several generations for:

(2.) ON this application an order was passed directing that the moiety of the income which the Court had collected be given to the applicant Bakhtawar Singh, and that the other half be given to the Raja of Mandhata. Against that order the present revision application is filed.

(3.) IT is argued for the non-applicant that the real dispute is with regard to the temple and that, therefore, Section 145 is applicable. It is clear from the proceedings that this is not the case, The dispute is with regard to the division of the offerings made to the temple The cases quoted for the non-applicant, viz., The Collector of Thana v. Krishnanath Govind [1880] 5 Bom. 322 and In re Muthusami Pillai 2 Weir. 112, are not to the point. It has been settled by the Calcutta High Court that offerings given by worshippers to any deity are not profits arising out of a building; that they arise out of deity irrespective of the building or the land upon which he may happen to dwell; and that to hold otherwise would be to allow the criminal Courts to interfere with the customary laws of this country. It seems to me that where the dispute relates merely to offerings made, then the dispute is about moveable property, and that declaration under Section 145, Criminal P.C., that one of the parties is in possession of such offerings, is an order made without jurisdiction : see Guiram Ghosal v. Lal Behari Das [1910] 37 Cal. 578 and Ram Saran Pathak v. Raghu Nandan Gir 1910. 38 Cal. 387.