SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(SC) 164

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., S.K. DAS AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale, Appellant
Versus
Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 261 of 1955.
22nd September, 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Purshottam Tricumdas, Senior Advocate (Mrs. E. Udayaratnam and Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Respondent 1; Mr. W. S. Barlinge, Senior Advocate (M/s. Shankar Anand and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates, with him), for Respondents 6 and 7.

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, E.UDAYARATHNAM, K.L.Hathi, PARSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, R.Ganapathy Iyer, R.H.Dhebar, S.S.SHUKLA, Shankar Anand Zinjarde, W.S.Barlingay

Headnote:RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS—SUIT FOR DECLARATION - Nature of Property—WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS OF PUBLIC TRUST OR OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL - MISTAKEN INFERENCE FROM DOCUMENT - Private property not to be mixed up with the trust property

       -the nature of property and its user and the mode of its management as held in

       – A trustee must not mix private property with trust property, because if he does so, he undertakes a heavy burden of proving that any particular property is his, as distinct from the trust — See decision in the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, AIR 1960 SC 100 = 1960(1) SCR 773 = 1960 SCJ 82.

       

Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, J. : This appeal with a certificate of the High Court of Judicature, Bombay, has been filed against the judgment and decree of that Court dated April 22, 1949, in First Appeal No. 403 of 1945, confirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik in Special Suit No. 5 of 1943 decided on August 14, 1945. The High Court made a slight modification in the matter of costs, to which shall refer later.

2. The plaintiff, who is the appellant here, is the descendant of one Ganpati Maharaj, who was a devotee of "Shri Venkatesh Balaji". Ganpati Maharaj died in 1701 at the ripe age of 98. When Ganpati Maharaj was 72 years old, it was vouchsafed to him in a dream that an image of Venkatesh Balaji would be found by him in river Tambraparni in Tirunelveli District. He found the image, brought it to his house in Junnar (Poona District) and installed it. The worship of Shri Venkatesh Balaji was carried on by him, and when he died, he left behind him three sons and a daughter. His eldest son, Timmayya, at the time of his death was 12 years old. Timmayya succceeded Ganpati Maharaj and lived till 1768, when he died at the ripe age of 79. During his lifetime, Timmayya obtained several properties as presents and gifts. The present suit concerns these properties which are described in the schedules attached to the plaint. The appellant is the direct descendant of Ganpati in the eldest male line, and respondents 1 to 4 are the descendants from Ganpati s daughter, Nagubai.

3. On April 23, 1942, the first four respondents made an application to the District Court under S. 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 (No. 14 of 1920), hereinafter called the Act, against the appellant and two others asking that the appellant be directed to furnish full particulars of the properties and their application and for accounts of the income as also of the properties during the three preceding years. The appellant in reply denied that there was a trust, much less a public trust, and claimed the idol and the properties as private. He undertook to bring a suit under S. 5(3) of the Act, and the suit out of which the present appeal arises, was filed on March 21, 1943. He claimed in the suit three declarations, which were as follows:

" 1. It may be declared that Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Deity and Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Sansthan are not legal trust as alleged by the Defendants and their nature also is not such as alleged by the Defendants.

2. If the court holds that a trust in the matter of Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Diety and Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Sansthan exists, then it may be declared that the said trust is not a public one, that the same has not come into existence for the religious and charitable purposes and that the Religious and Charitable Trusts Act (sic) (No. 14 of 1920) is not applicable to the same.

3. It may be declared that the Defendants for themselves or as the representatives of the entire Hindu Community have no right and authority whatever over Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Devta and Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Sansthan and that they or the entire Hindu Community has no right and authority whatever in any capacity whatever to interfere in the matter of Devta (Deity) and Sansthan or to ask for the Yadi (list) of the properties or accounts in respect of the income thereof and to ask for reliefs mentioned in prayer clauses of the miscellaneous application No. 19 of 1942."

3a. The trial Judge framed eight issues. The first two involved the declarations sought. Three others concerned the position of defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7 in respect of maintenance, share in the right of customary worship and management. One issue raised the question whether the suit was bad because the deity was not joined and the remaining two were consequential.

4. The trial Judge decided all the issues against the appellant. He held that the suit properties were not the personal or private properties of the appellant, that the plainti





































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top