Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short point of law which arises in this appeal is whether under Rule 5 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945, the appellant the Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj, is liable to pay the Matmi amount in question. It appears that respondent No. 1, the Board of Revenue, had passed an order on the 6th November, 1956, directing that the Matalaba Matmi amounting to Rs. 15,404/14/6 be recovered from the Shebait of the appellant temple. The appellant disputed the validity of this order and filed a Writ Petition (No. 10 of 1957), in the High Court of Rajasthan contending that the said amount was not recoverable from the appellant. The High Court has dismissed this writ petition and the appellant has come to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court.

2. In its petition, the case for the appellant was that several lands had been granted to the appellant from time to time and that these grants were made in the name of the Idol, and that the Seva Pooja of the Idol and the management of its properties was entrusted to the Goswami ever since the Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj was taken to Jaipur from Brindaban. On the death of the Ninth Shebait, Goswami Shri Krishna Chandra succeeded to the Shebaitship in 1888 and continued to be in management as such Shebait until 1935. On his death, his eldest son Goswami Bhola Nath succeeded and Seva Pooja was looked after by him during his litetime. On the death of Goswami Bhola Nath in 1945, his eldest son Goswami Pradumna Kumar succeeded to the Shebaitship and has been carrying on the management of the properties of the temple and looking after the Seva Pooja of the Idol. It was during the management of Pradumna Kumar that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 1. According to this order, Matmi has been sanctioned "in favour of Goswami Bhola Nath on the death of Krishna Chandra Deo and in favour of Pradumna Kumar Deo on the death of Bhola Nath" and the total amount directed in that behalf is Rs. 15,404/ 14 / 6. The appellant s petition specifically averred that the property in question had been granted to the Idol itself and that the Shebaits have been performing the Seva Pooja of the Idol and managing the properties of the temple as such Shebaits. On these allegations, the appellant prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction should be issued prohibiting respondent No. 1 and the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, respondent No.2, and their nominees or agents from recovering or from taking any step for the recovery of any Matalaba Matmi under the impugned order of respondent No. 1 from the petitioner s estate. The appellant also claimed that an appropriate order or direction or writ should be issued quashing the said impugned order as well as the prior order dated 20th April, 1954 on which the latter order was based.

3. Respondents 1, 2 and the State of Rajasthan which was joined as respondent No. 3 . disputed the appellant s claim and made several pleas. In regard to the allegation of the appellant that the properties in question had been granted to the Idol, the respondents reply merely stated that the allegation was not admitted as the documents regarding the original grants were not traceable. The respondents urged that the Matalaba Matmi had been properly levied by respondent No. 1 against the Shebaits and that the appellant s grievance that its properties were not liable to pay the said amount was not well founded.

4. The High Court has proceeded to deal with this dispute on the basis that the appellant, the Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj was the owner of the properties. It, however, took the view that since the Shebaits were managing the properties and performing the Seva Pooja of the appellant Idol, Shebaitship itself being property the relevant Rules applied, because the beneficial interest which the Shebaits held could be said to amount to a State grant within the meaning of. R.4(1). On this view, the Hi