Shrinivas R. Acharya and Ors. vs Purshottam Chaturbhuj.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1952 Supreme(Bom) 162

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Desai S.T. , J.
Appellants: Shrinivas R. Acharya and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Purshottam Chaturbhuj and Ors.
O.C.J. Suit No. 1664 of 1949
Decided On: 12.12.1952
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: N.C.N. Acharya and K.K. Desai, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Purshottam Tricumdas, R.B. Thaker, R.M. Kantawalla and M.M. Desai, Advs.

Headnote:A.Res judicata - Section 11(6) of Code of Civil Procedure - Consent decree passed in 1935 - trust declared as charitable trust and scheme framed was approved and sanctioned - as per scheme mahant/ acharya to be appointed to worship and manage all the temple activity having facility of salary and accommodation - first founding acharya died - dispute about appointment of new acharya - fresh suit claiming directions for modifying scheme which might amount to reopening of earlier consent decree - a question of modification, alteration of scheme can obviously arise at some later stage in the working of the charity, it would not be the same res; nor can it necessarily be said that the issue that arises in the subsequent suit has been or must be deemed to have been adjudicated upon or decided in the previous suit - On the other hand vital and important questions may arise requiring substantial alterations in the scheme. This may also necessitate going into lengthy evidence. It cannot be laid down as a general rule that merely because there is available the procedure by way of any application a substantive suit is necessarily barred. ( para 13 and 14)
       B.Liberty to apply - charity scheme - In case of a scheme framed by the Court in a charity suit question may arise of working out the rights declared by the judgment - the effect of the liberty to apply in such a case would be to enable the Court to deal with the matter in a summary manner.( para 14)
       c.Extract of Judgment: The doctrine of res judicata is not merely: a technical doctrine. It is directly founded on the general rule that, "a man shall not be twice vexed for the same cause." It is fundamental doctrine based on the principle of conclusiveness of Judgments and finality of litigation. The plea of res judicata must show either an actual merger of rights or causes of action or that the same point has been actually decided between the parties; or it must show that the plaintiff might and ought to have raised the point in the previous suit and but for his own default might have there obtained what he now seeks in the subsequent suit. ( para 15)
       Differentiated from : Damodarbhat v. Bhogilal, 24 Bom. 45 (C).

JUDGMENT - Desai, J.

1. The plaintiffs seek directions of this Court, which they say are necessary for the administration of a public charitable trust, known as "Narayanwadi Temple Trust". They have obtained sanction of the Advocate General under Section 92, Civil P. C. 10 institute this suit.

2. There is in Bombay what is known as "Narayanwadi Temple" wherein are installed, deities of Shri Ramanuj and Shri BalaJi, worshipped by Hindu Vaishnavs who in this particular case are mostly Cutchi Lohanas of the Ramanuj sect. It appears that the temple and valuable properties belonging to it were being managed by one Ramanuj Acharya, who was officiating as an acharya or guru in 1929, when the Advocate General of Bombay filed a suit being suit No. 654 of 1929 against him for a declaration that the properties belonging and appertaining to the said temple at Narayanwadi were held by him as a trustee of a public charitable and religious trust. An account of the management of the trust properties by the said Ramanuj Acharya was also claimed in that suit. It was also prayed that a scheme should be framed for the proper administration of the said trust. Other incidental reliefs were also asked for in that suit.

3. That suit was contested by Ramanuj Acharya, who claimed that he held the properties in question under various documents and that they were vested in him as the owner of the same. He denied that he was liable to render any account of his management. He also denied that the properties belonged to a public charitable and religious trust. After a preliminary decree inter alia for accounts and framing a scheme was passed the parties to that suit arrived at a compromise and a consent decree was obtained from this Court on 17-11-1935. By that consent decree it was declared that a scheme should be framed for the proper administration of the trust which was declared to be a public charitable trust. There were certain other terms in that consent decree with which I am not concerned. A scheme was framed and approved by the Advocate General and sanctioned by this Court.

4. Clauses 2, 12, 13, 22, 24 and 29 of that scheme are as follows:

"2. The trust properties shall be vested in the Trustees for the time being under this scheme and they shall be administered and managed by them subject to and in conformity- with the provisions of this scheme.

12. The Trustees by a majority of at least three-fourths of their number shall from time to time appoint a mahant or acharya of the said temple; such appointment shall be made as far as practicable from the descendants of Swami Ramanujacharya Perumalacharya the founder of the gadi at Naryanwadi. The Trustees by a like majority of at least three-fourths of their numbers shall have also power to remove for good cause the mahant or acharya for the time being.

13. The mahant or acharya for the time being shall perform or cause to be performed all requisite ceremonies in the said temple and shall carry on the management of the same subject to the supervision of the Trustees,

22. Subject to the control of the trustees the mahant or acharya shall perform or cause to be performed the daily and other worships including Rajbhog and perform Utsava such as "Hmdola, Annkota, Dhanurmash, Ramanuj Swamis Utsava and shall supply daily flowers and other necessary articles for the worship of the Deities of Shri Balaji and Ramanuj in the temples of the said premises. The mahant or acharya shall also subject to such control as aforesaid supply the necessary and usual articles and things for the purpose of carrying out the usual Utsavas (festivals).

24. The Trustees shall pay to the rnahant Or acharya a monthly personal allowance of Rs. 120 and at their discretion defray the reasonable expenses of his household including food, clothes, servants, horses, carriages etc. The Trustees shall allow the mahant or acharya to reside in the Narayanwadi property and, occupy free of rent such portion thereof as shall be necessarily requir

Click Here to Read the rest of this document