RADHAKRISHNA DAS Vs. RAMANA SWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances leading to this litigation are not in controversy. The plaintiff, Thakur Sri Radharamna Swami, was admittedly the family idol of Ranganath Deb Goawami, defendant 2 in this case. The father of defendant 2 executed a kebala dated 21 November 1909 transferring hisshebayati right, the in am lands endowed for the service of the deity and the plaintiff idol itself to the Guru of the defendant 1 the then Mahant of Gangamatha Math, at Puri, and put him in possession of the plaintiff deity. The Government of Madras resumed the in am grant on 4 November 1921 as it had been alienated, and the purpose of the grant had failed. Defendant 2 thereupon applied to the Government of Madras for handing over the net assessment of the village to him so that the seba puja of the deity may be continued. On objection being taken by Defendant 1, the alliance, the parties were referred to establish their rights in a civil Court and the collections from the village were directed to be kept in the Treasury as deposit pending the final adjudication of their title. Defendant 2 thereupon filed a suit, T.S. No 98 of 1926, on or about 14tb. April 1926 against defendant 1 "for a decalration that the plaintiff Thakur had not been removed from the said Goawami Math to the said Gangamatha Math as was falsely stated in the above-mentioned Kebala dated 21st November 1909." This suit was finally decided against defendant 2 on 27th September 1928, whereupon the Board of Revenue regranted the in am village of Jaggilipadaro to defendant 1. Defendant 1 has thus been in custody of the plaintiff idol and the in am village of Jaggilipadaro which constitutes the endowment of the deity, as well as the shebayati right of defendant 2, from 1909. The present suit was raised by one of the zamindars of Takkali in the district of Vizagapatam as the next friend of the plaintiff Thakur for a-declaration that "the retention of the plaintiff Thakur at the said Gan. gamatha Math by the said Madhab Das, and, after his death, by the defendant Radhakrushna Das, has been wrongful and is "a continuing wrong and prayed for a decree directing the defendant Radhakrushna Das to restore the plaintiff Thakur to its original place of consecration, namely, the said Goswami Math.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that the ancestors of defendant 2, Ranganath Deb Goswami, were formerly the Gurus of the Raj family of Athgado, residing in a house in Pun town known as the Goswami Math . In or about the year 1789, the then Raja of Athgado had the plaintiff Thakur installed and consecrated as the Thakur of the Goswami family in a temple at the said Goswami Math with a view to ensuring the performance of its seba according to Vedic rites by the Goswamis in perpetual succession. In the same year, it is alleged, after the said consecration the Raja of Athgado made an endowment in favour of the plaintiff-Thakur of certain lands in village Jaggilipadaro in Athgado Taluk with a view to providing for the daily offerings to and the service of the plaintiff Thakur. The plaintiff avers that the retention of the Thakur at the said Gangamatha Math is wholly wrong ful, being contrary to the wishes and purpose of the founder, is sacrilegious and is a continuing wrong, that the plaintiff is entitled to be restored to the pagoda at Goswami Math, and to be worshipped there from day to day in its own way, according to the customary mode of worship of the said Goswami Math.

(3.) The present next friend of the plaintiff-Thakur claims to be the successor of the original founder of the endowment and as such is interested in the location of the plaintiff Thakur at the proper place according to the purpose of the endowment, and asserts that it is the will of the plaintiff Thakur to return to the pagoda at the Goswami Math and to be worshipped there according to the customary mode of the institution. The cause of action for the suit is stated to have arisen on or about the 21 November 1909, when the father of defendant 2 purported to transfer the idol, and is alleged to be arising from day to day thereafter. Defendant 1 in his written statement denied that the plaintiff Thakur had been installed or consecrated by any Raja of Athgado or that the purpose of the endowment was that the plaintiff Thakur should always remain in the Goswami Math. It is his case that defendant 2 transferred the inam lands of village Jaggilipadaro to the then Mahant of Gangamatha Math and delivered the plaintiff Thakur as it was his family idol and capable of being removed. Since then the defendant's Guru, Madhab Das, located it in a separate temple in his Math and was performing its seba puja and janni jatra and meeting the expenses from the income of the lands in the village of Jaggilipadaro, and after his death, defendant 1 has been performing its seba puja and janni jatra. It is further alleged that the residential house of defendant 2 and his ancestors (who were married men) and in which they lived with their family and children is popularly known as the Goswami Math" and that the plaintiff Thakur was located in a room allotted for its puja along with other idols. The father of defendant 2 was legally competent to transfer the lands for legal necessity and delivered the plaintiff Thakur so that its seba puja may be continued. Defendant l's case therefore is that since 1909, his Guru, and after his death, defendant 1 are in possession of the plaintiff Thakur in their own right for a much longer period than the statutory period of 12 years and, at any rate,, he has acquired a right by adverse possession to the custody of the plaintiff Thakur. Defendant 2 admits the allegations of the plaintiff in toto and says that he is willing and prepared to carry on the seva puja and worship of the plaintiff-deity according to strict Vedic rites, in conformity with the intention of the founder and the purpose of the institution in case the plaintiff Thakur is restored to its proper place of consecration and worship.