1. Suit under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure for framing a management scheme for a deity's seva puja and debuttar properties. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 354
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1st November, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR,JJ.
Sree Kalimata Thakurani of Kalighat Appellant
Versus
Jibandhan Mukherjee and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 289 of 1960
Advocates appeared
M/s. N. R. Bhattacharji and S. C. Mazumdar, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. D. N. Mukherjee Advocate, with him) for Respondents Nos. 5 to 7, 10, 12, 15,17, 20, 24, 26, 35, 37, 62, 68, 69, 87 to 90, 118, l19, 154, 157, 184, 267, 274, 276, 277 and 295 to 298.
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.N.MUKHERJI, N.R.Bhattacharji, S.C.MAJUMDER
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, D.N.MUKHERJI, N.R.Bhattacharji, S.C.MAJUMDER
In a suit for settling a temple management scheme under Section 92 CPC, the court should not adjudicate disputed titles to property. Furthermore, shebaitship is a proprietary right, distinguishing a shebait from a pujari, and management committees should be balanced to avoid over-representation of shebaits.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 92 - Settlement of scheme for management of religious endowment - Court's role in determining title to property - In a suit for the settlement of a management scheme, it is inappropriate for the court to investigate disputed questions of title to property. (Para 4)
(B) Religious Endowments - Shebaitship - Distinction between shebait and pujari - A shebait is a human ministrant of the deity and shebaitship is a right in property, whereas a pujari is a servant appointed by the founder or shebait to conduct worship. (Para 10)
(C) Management Committees - Composition - The court may modify the composition of a managing committee to prevent over-representation of shebaits and ensure a majority of members are from outside the body of shebaits. (Para 8)
(D) Scheme Modification - Liberty to apply for directions - A management scheme should include a provision allowing parties to apply to the District Judge for alterations, modifications, or directions regarding difficulties in implementation. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
A suit was instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure to frame a scheme for the management of the worship of a deity and its debuttar properties. A scheme was settled by the District Judge and subsequently amended by the High Court. The appellant challenged the amended scheme, contending that certain lands were omitted from the property schedules, shebaits should not be part of the managing committee, their remuneration was improper, and there was no provision for seeking further directions from the court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that disputed titles to property should not be adjudicated in proceedings for settling a management scheme. It held that shebaits, having functioned as such for a long period, should not be entirely excluded from management, although their representation in the committee should be reduced. It further held that shebaits are not mere pujaris as shebaitship is a right in property. The court also agreed that a provision for seeking directions from the District Judge should be added to the scheme.
Issues: Whether disputed properties must be specifically enumerated in a management scheme; whether shebaits are entitled to be part of the managing committee and receive remuneration; and whether the scheme must reserve liberty for parties to apply for directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the scope of a suit for settling a management scheme does not extend to resolving title disputes. It established that shebaitship is a proprietary right, distinguishing it from the role of a pujari who is a servant of the shebait. To ensure effective management, the committee should be balanced with a majority of external members.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over inclusion of specific lands as debuttar property, composition of the managing committee, shebaits' remuneration, and provisions for judicial directions. (Para 3 )
3. Investigation of disputed titles is inappropriate in scheme-settlement suits; shebaitship constitutes a property right distinct from the role of a pujari. (Para 4 , 10 )
4. In proceedings for settling a temple management scheme, courts should not adjudicate disputed questions of title to property. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal dismissed with modifications to the managing committee's composition and the addition of a clause for seeking judicial directions. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 15 )
6. Can a court decide disputed titles to property during the settlement of a temple management scheme?
No, it is not appropriate for the court to investigate questions of title to property about which there is a dispute in a suit for the settlement of a scheme for the management of a temple. (Para 4 )
7. What is the legal distinction between a shebait and a pujari?
A shebait is a human ministrant of the deity and holds a right in property, whereas a pujari is a servant appointed by the founder or shebait to conduct worship. (Para 10 )
8. Is shebaitship a transferable office or a property right?
Shebaitship is a right in property. Any challenge to a person's right to act as a shebait must be pursued through available legal remedies rather than through the management scheme. (Para 13 )
9. Should a management scheme for a religious endowment include a provision for judicial directions?
Yes, the scheme should include a provision allowing parties to apply to the District Judge for directions regarding difficulties or matters not dealt with in the scheme. (Para 11 )
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Calcutta under Art. 133 (1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution by the first defendant to the suit, Sree Sree Kalimata Thakurani of Kalighat represented by her next friend Manik Lal Mukherjee.
2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiffs who are respondents 1 to 5 to the appeal, under S. 92 of the code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of framing a scheme for the proper management of the seva puja of Sree Sree Kalimata Thakurani and her associated deities and, for the proper management of the properties, declared to be debuttar proparties in a previous suit. The District Judge, Alipur in whose Court the suit had been instituted settled a scheme with respect to the aforesaid matters but upon appeal by the appellant the High Court amended that scheme. The main grievance of the appellant in this appeal is regarding certain amendments to the scheme made by the High Court.
3. According to Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel, for the appellant, the amended scheme is defective in four respects. He contends that in the first place the scheme does not specify that 595 odd bighas of land of Kalighat are also debuttar property. In the second place it was not proper to include any shebait at all in the managing commit- tee of the endowment. Then according to him the provision made in the scheme with respect to the remuneration of the shebaits is wholly improper. Finally, that the scheme is defective as it does not make any provision reserving liberty to the parties to apply to the District Judge for directions.
4. Taking the first point, the direction made by the High Court in the scheme with respect to the properties belonging to the deity is as follows:
"The properties enumerated in Schedules A and B belong to Sree Sree KaliMata Thakurani and the associated deities of Kalimata together with such other properties as may be acquired by purchase, dedication, gift or as offerings or in any manner whatsoever are hereinafter called the Debuttar. Estate and appertain to a Hindu Public Religious Endowment. Any other property which may hereafter be found by a competent Court to belong to the Deity will a so be part of the Debuttar Estate".
Mr. Bhattacharji points out that 595 odd bighas of land in Kalighat which belong to the deity are not enumerated in either schedule A or B & says that the shebaits and their predecessors in interest, laying claims to this land, have alienated more than 90% of it. The shebaits being, merely trustees of the deity cannot be permitted to assert a claim adverse to the deity and any alienations made by them are not binding on the deity. According to him the title to these lands still remains with the deity, and therefore, they should have been mentioned at least in a separate schedule to the scheme as being the properties of the deity. On the question whether these lands belong to the deity or not there is a dispute between the parties before us. The shebaits whom Mr. Viswanatha Sastri represents deny that these lands belong to the deity and said that they were granted to the shebaits for worshipping the deity and maintaining the temple etc. In our opinion in a suit for the settlement of the scheme for the management of a temple it is not appropriate for the court to investigate questions of title to property about which there is dispute.
5. Mr. Bhattacharji then refers us to a previous litigation to which the deity was a party and in which the question of the deity s title to the lands in question was raised. The decision of the High Court in that case was reported in Iswari Kalimata v. Manager, Bijni Raj Court of Wards Estate , ILR (1949) 2 Cal 587. In particular he relies upon two observations contained in that judgment of the High Court. The first was at p. 593 (of ILR Cal) : (at p. 390 of AIR) and runs thus:
"The rubokari shows that the shebaits who took part in those proceedings made unqalified admiss
