Back
1933 Supreme(SC) 37
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD TKANKERTON, SIR JOHN WALLIS, AND SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON.
SIR SETH HUKUM CHAND - Appellant
Versus
MAHARAJ BAHADUR SINGH (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Patna.
Decided On : May 12, 1933.
Solicitors for appellants :Barrow, Rogers & Nevill. Solicitors for respondents: Hy. S. L. Polak & Co.
Spiritual belief in the sanctity of a site does not determine legal ownership. Furthermore, the unauthorized alteration of religious symbols in a shrine constitutes a continuing wrong, meaning the limitation period for seeking relief resets continuously.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I, r. 8 - Indian Limitation Act - Section 23 and Article 120 - Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Section 56 - Representative suit regarding rights of worship on a sacred hill - Determination of whether the land is debattar property or private property - Faith in the spiritual sanctity of a place does not determine physical ownership - If title is vested in a private owner, the right of worship does not automatically prohibit reasonable administrative acts such as the construction of dwellings for temple servants or the posting of guards, provided such acts do not actually interfere with the right of worship. (Paras 10-15)
(B) Indian Limitation Act - Section 23 - Continuing wrong - Alteration of religious symbols in a shrine - Where a wrong continues to exist, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the day on which the wrong continues - Such an act constitutes a continuing wrong and is not barred by the standard limitation period for a single act. (Paras 25-27)
(C) Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Section 56 - Injunctions - Declarations and injunctions are discretionary reliefs - Court may refuse relief if the plaintiff has disentitled themselves through acquiescence or other conduct. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
A representative suit was filed by one sect of a religious community against another regarding the management and use of a sacred hill. The defendants had acquired the proprietary rights of the hill from a previous owner. The plaintiffs alleged that the construction of dwellings for servants, the posting of guards, and the erection of a gateway were sacrilegious acts that interfered with their rights of worship. Additionally, the plaintiffs challenged the alteration of specific religious symbols in certain shrines, claiming they were replaced with forms they refused to worship.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the hill was not debattar property but private property, the title of which had legally passed to the defendants. The acts of constructing dwellings and posting guards did not interfere with the right of worship, as historical evidence of other non-religious activities on the hill showed its sanctity was subject to reasonable modifications. However, the alteration of the religious symbols in the shrines was a wrong of which the plaintiffs were entitled to complain.
Issues: Whether the sacred hill was debattar property or private property; whether the administrative acts of the owners interfered with the right of worship; and whether the alteration of religious symbols constituted a continuing wrong for the purpose of limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: Spiritual belief in the sanctity of a location does not override legal title of ownership. Rights of worship are protected, but they do not preclude the owner from performing reasonable acts of management unless actual interference is proven. A wrong that persists over time, such as the improper placement of religious symbols, is a continuing wrong under the law of limitation, and thus the claim is not barred by the standard limitation period.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
title
- debattar property
-
title
-
religious law
- rights of worship
-
practice and procedure
-
limitation
- continuing wrong
-
specific relief
- injunctions
-
limitation
Judgement
Appeal (No. 121 of 1930) from a decree of the High Court (August 8, 1928), which modified a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ranchi (May 26, 1924).
The appellants, representing the Digambari sect of the Jain community, instituted a suit against the respondents, representing the Swetambari sect of that community, alleging that various acts done or threatened to be done by the Swetambaris on Parasnath Hill were an unlawful interference with the rights of worship of the Digambaris.
31 Law Rep. 60 Ind. App. 313 ( 1932- 1933) Sir Seth Hukum C hand V. Maharaj Bahadur Singh
132
The trial judge made certain declarations and granted injunctions prayed for ; upon appeal the High Court (Ross and Wort JJ.) set aside certain of the declarations, and corresponding injunctions, but otherwise affirmed the judgment.
The facts of the case, and the grounds of the judgments in the High Court appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
1933. March 10, 13, 14. De Gruyther K.C., Hyam and Champat Rai Jain for the appellants.
Dunne K.C. and Wallach for the respondents.
May 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR JOHN WALLIS. This case is the result of further disputes between the two sects of Jain as to their rights of worship on Parasnath Hill. As so much turns on the beliefs now entertained by the whole Jain community with reference to the sacred character of this hill, their Lordships will begin by citing the opening paragraphs of the judgment delivered by Lord Phillimore a few years ago in Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. Hukum Chand (( 1925) 24 All. L. J. 100 (P. C.).), in which this subject is most felicitously dealt with.
" The Jains recognize 24 highly saintly personages—men who have attained salvation or nirvana, who are called tirthankars (finders of the ford, across the river of death). These four and twenty are counted in many respects as higher than the gods or some of the gods in the Hindu pantheon. Twenty of them are believed to have attained nirvana in the present cycle of the worlds history upon the Hill Parasnath in the district of Hazaribagh in Bengal, with the result that the hill is held in reverence by Jains. The hill itself has some remarkable natural features, and rises into several peaks. Twenty spots apparently marked out by natural features, are believed to be places from which the 20 tirthankars quitted earth ; and at each of these spots, a footprint of the saint is worshipped. There is a small enclosure covered with a cupola, which at the present moment is made of white marble. These spots have been set apart from remote antiquity. The four remaining tirthankars quitted earth in other parts of India. In respect of them conventional spots have been since the year 1868 set apart and treated in a similar way. Upon the hill there are also a shrine to a lesser saint called Gautama Swami, an important temple in one of the highest parts of the mountain called Jalmandil, certain platforms set apart for religious contemplation, and two dharmasalas or rest-houses for pilgrims. The hill is much frequented by pilgrims, who take the 24 shrines or tonks in regular order, worshipping at each. According to the tenets of the Digambara, this worship must be performed fasting, and the whole hill is so sacred that from the moment they set foot on it, they must abstain from any office of nature, even spitting."
These practices are observed on their pilgrimages by the Swetambaris as well, but the Digambaris in the present case go much further and take up the position that any course of action inconsistent with their due observance, such as the regular and continuous employment of human beings on the hill or the building thereon of dwellings for them, necessarily involves a sacrilegious pollution and desecration of the sacred hill which they have a right to restrain. These are matters for the Jains themselves, and the Civil Courts are only concerned with them in so far as they are relevant to questions of civil rig
