SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, C.A. VAIDIALINGAM AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
Ugam Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
Kesrimal and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1967, D/-26-11-1970.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S.T. Desai Sr. Advocate (Mr. P. C. Bhartari, Advocate, Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate, of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. and Mr. Pukhraj Singh, Advocate with him). for Appellants Mr. S. V. Gupte, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. K. K. Jain and H. K. Puri, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 to 9.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 41, Rule 27, section 9 – Evidence Act – Section l10 – Permanent Injunction – Declaration – Respondents 1 to 9 filed a suit against Appellants and Respondents 10 and 11 and two others for a declaration that they have been carrying on and are entitled to carry on Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan etc. of idol of Adeshwarji, first Tirthankar in Temple named after him at Paroli without interference according to tenets observed by Digambari Sect of Jain religion. – Said Temple of Shri Adeshwarji is said to have been in existence for 200 years while Respondents aver that inscriptions on it bear Vikram Samvat 1510 – It was prayed that Defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from (i) erecting Dhwajadand and putting up Kalash, (ii) enclosing idols by putting up doors and locks; or in any manner altering nature and shape and appearance of idols installed in said Temple; or directly or indirectly doing any act or thing which may have effect of wounding religious susceptibilities and sentiments of followers of Digambri Jain Sect and (iii) from interfering with free and unfettered rights of Plaintiffs of performing Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan and other rites according to tenets of Digamber Jain Sect – Held, When once it has been found that Swetamberies have right of management and possession of Temple there is a presumption of ownership under Section l10 of Evidence Act does not arise nor is it relevant. – It is no doubt contended by Respondents Advocate that when consecration of an idol takes place ownership of Temple is in idol and therefore, question of presumption under Section l10 does not arise. – It is again contended by Shri Desai that moment it is held that it is not possible to come to a conclusion as to which Sect idol belongs, as has been held by Court below, Respondents cannot be allowed to object to Appellants worshipping idol according to their tenets. – Contention, however, ignores rights of Digamberies to worship in accordance with their tenets. – If contention of Advocate for Appellants is accepted it will be tantamount to holding that Digamberies have no right to worship as there would be denominal (denominational - Ed.) change in idol if Swetamberies are held to have right to worship it according to their tenets by placing Chakshus in idol or by errecting their Dhwajadand or Kalash over Temple. – Directions of High Court are not unreasonable nor do they in any way affect right of Respondents to worship because directions clearly enable Swetamberies who wish to worship deity within that period without disturbing Digamberies to be at liberty to do so and likewise it will be open to Digamberies to go and worship in temple during the period it is kept open. – In view of acute controversy between these 2 Sects and their reluctance to arrive at an amicable settlement directions given by High Court are manifestly reasonable just and proper – Appeal Dismissed
Judgment
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.: This Appeal by Special Leave of this Court is against the judgment of a single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the judgment and decree of the District Court with certain varitions.
2. Respondents 1 to 9 filed a suit against the Appellants and Respondents 10 and 11 and two others for a declaration that they have been carrying on and are entitled to carry on Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan etc. of the idol of Adeshwarji, the first Tirthankar in the Temple named after him at Paroli without interference according to the tenets observed by the Digambari Sect of the Jain religion. The said Temple of Shri Adeshwarji is said to have been in existence for 200 years while the Respondents aver that the inscriptions on it bear Vikram Samvat 1510 (1454 AD).
3. The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Temple was constructed and the idol was consecrated according to and by the followers of the tenets of the Digamber Sect; that the Plaintiffs and the other followers of the Digamber Sect have been performing Darshan Prakshal and Poojan of the said idol according to their tenets ever since the Temple was founded; that on the 23rd of December 1949 the Defendants attempted to convert the said idol into the idol of Swetambari Sect by putting Chakshus (artificial eyes) thereon, but were prevented from doing so by a strong opposition of the followers of the Digamber Sect; that thereafter some temporary arrangements were made between the followers of the two Sects who agreed to maintain the status quo until a decision of the Civil Court on the rival claims of the parties was given; that in disregard of the temporary settlement and without getting the rights in the Temple adjudicated upon by the Civil Court, the Defendants made arrangements to put Dhwajadand and Kalash on the said Temple according to their tenets, and that they also further learnt that the Defendants were intending to enclose the said idol by putting up doors and locks with the object of interfering with and obstructing the free exercise by the Digamberies of their unfettered rights to perform Poojan, Prakshal and worship of the said idol according to their tenets. On these allegations it was prayed that the Defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from (i) erecting the Dhwajadand and putting up Kalash, (ii) enclosing the idols by putting up doors and locks; or in any manner altering the nature and shape and appearance of the idols installed in the said Temple; or directly or indirectly doing any act or thing which may have the effect of wounding the religious susceptibilities and sentiments of the followers of the Digambri Jain Sect and (iii) from interfering with the free and unfettered rights of the Plaintiffs of performing Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan and other rites according to the tenets of Digamber Jain Sect.
4. The Defendants did not deny that they intended to put the Netras but said that they did so because the Netras which the idol had even before the said date having been damaged and fallen out, new Netras were put up. They further claimed that since its existence the temple of Adeshwarji has been in the possession of the Defendants who have been in exclusive management of the Temple and its property; that the plaintiffs never used to do Poojan or Prakshal in the Temple nor had they any right thereto, and that when in 1949 there was a dispute between the parties a temporary arrangement was made but the Defendants did not admit any right of Plaintiffs to Poojan. It was further averred that the said idol and the Temple is in all respects Jain Swetambari Sect, that it has been so used and described in all the historical records from time to time and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the religious rights of the parties nor is it a dispute of the civil nature
5. On these pleadings issues were framed on 3-12-55 but subsequently after the evidence in the case was recorded and having regard thereto fresh issues were
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.