SWAMINARAYAN JETHALAL CHIMANLAL Vs. ACHARYA SHRI DEVENDRAPRASADJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are consolidated appeals from the judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in its appellate jurisdiction, both dated 10 October 1934, the first modifying a decree of the Joint Judge of Ahmedabad dated 30 June 1927, and the second a decree of the first class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad dated 3 January 1929. The appeals relate to the affairs of the Northern Diocese of the Swaminarayan sect, the head of which is the Acharya of Ahmedabad. The appellants are members of the said sect who have been substituted for the original plaintiffs in the suit who died pending the hearing of this appeal. It is common ground that the Swaminarayan sect was founded in the early part of the 19 century by a religions reformer of northern India, named Sajanand. He built a number of temples, the principal of which were the Nar Narayan temple at Ahmedabad, and the Lakshmi Narayan temple at Vadtal in the Kaira district. In 1827 three years before his death he divided India into two dioceses, north and south, the center of the former being at Ahmedabad, and of the latter at Vadtal, and, on his death, he appointed one of his nephews Acharya of one diocese, and another nephew Acharya of the other diocese. For the upkeep of the Institution, Sajanand provided that his followers should pay a tax known as dharmada which is a percentage on income. Two other forms of money payment came to be made, namely, "nam vero" which is a poll tax paid by every follower to the Acharya each year, and "bhets" which are voluntary offerings to the Acharya made on special occasions.

(2.) The questions in this appeal relate solely to the Ahmedabad temple but, in order to understand the main question raised, it is necessary to mention that in the year 1922 a scheme was framed by the High Court of Bombay relating to the Vadtal temple. The High Court held in that case that the Acharya in the southern diocese was not the absolute owner of "nam vero" and "bhets," but was only entitled to be maintained out of them and any surplus had to be applied for the general purposes of the Institution, and the charge on the rest of the property for the maintenance of the Acharya would not attach unless and until the "nam vero" and "bhets" proved insufficient. The scheme provided that personal expenditure on account of the Acharya in excess of Rs. 2,000 a month should be subject to the sanction of a committee, and the term "personal expenditure" was defined to exclude household expenses, including expenses of residence, food, clothing, servants, horses, carriages and elephant, and all customary expenditure on official tours or other official occasions. This definition will be referred to more particularly at a later stage of this judgment. In the year 1901 the Acharya of the Ahmedabad temple died, having by will appointed Vasudev Prasad, who was defendant 1 and was in 1901 a minor of the age of 2? years, as his successor, and provided that certain named persons as trustees should manage the affairs of the Institution during the minority of defendant 1. In the year 1902, certain members of the sect filed suit No. 22 of 1902 in the Court of the District Judge of Ahmedabad under the provisions of S. 539 of the then Civil P. C. (corresponding with section 92 of the present Code) asking for the removal of the trustees, appointment of fresh trustees, accounts, and the framing of a scheme.

(3.) On 12 April 1905, the District Judge gave judgment in the suit holding that the property in suit (which was the property belonging to the Northern Diocese) was public religious property, but he declined to remove the trustees and thought it unnecessary to frame a scheme. An appeal was preferred to the High Court of Bombay which dismissed the appeal except only in respect of "nam vero" and "bhets." The High Court amended the finding of the lower Court upon this question by declaring that the property in suit was public religious property except in so far as it consisted of accumulations of "nam vero" and "bhets," or investments thereof. The position therefore as regards "nam vero" and "bhets" was not the same in the two dioceses. On 27 November 1920, the original plaintiffs who were members of the congregation of the Ahmedabad temple filed the present suit with the consent of the Collector of Ahmedabad under S. 92 Civil P. C., in the Court of the District Judge of Ahmedabad against defendant 1 who had attained his majority in the year 1917, the surviving trustees, and the Mahant of one of the subordinate temples, alleging misconduct on the part of defendant 1 and of the trustees, praying for the removal of defendant 1 and the trustees from management, and for a scheme and accounts.