JUDGMENT - Gokhale, J.

(1) This is an appeal by the original defendants against a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents awarding Rs. 14,457, costs of the suit and interest at 3 per cent from date of suit till full satisfaction on Rs. 12, 517-8-0 or on so such out of it as may remain unrealised from time to time. The plaintiffs belong to the Dev family. It is their case that the village of Mouje Chincholi, Taluka Haveli, was given in Inam by Shri Chhatrapati Raja Shahu to Shri Narayan Maharaj Dev, son of Chintaman Maharaj Dev, for meeting the expenses of the Deity Shri Mangalmurti at Chinchwad. Apart from the village of Chincholi, other villages like Chinchwad, Raval, Charoli were also given in Inam. It appears that the Inam was for meeting the expenses of the Deity. In 1744, there were disputes in the Dev family and that is why Peshwa Bajirao set apart half of the Inam villages and properties for religious and charitable purposes under a Tahanama, and the remaining half of the properties were distributed amongst the members of the Dev family to provide for their household needs and maintenance. After this Tahnama, some more properties were received by the Vahivatdar of the Sansthan from the contemporary rulers and by the end of 1774-74 the newly acquired properties came to be also divided under the terms of the Tahnama of the year 1744, and half of that was reserved to the Sansthan for the above-mentioned purposes. That was the effect of the Tahnama which was made by the Peshwa Madhavrao Ballal who gave an award to that effect. When the vahivat of the Sansthams properties was being thus carried on, one Dhondo Ganesh Dev and other members of the Dev family filed Civil Suit No. 2 of 1883 in the District Court at Poona against the then Vahiwatdars of the Sansthan, Chintaman Bajaji Dev and his son Appaji. The suit was filed for removal of the Vahivatdars Chintaman and his son and the framing of a new scheme for the vahivat of the Sansthan and its property. It appears that the defendants in that suit denied that the Chinchwad Sansthan was a public religious or charitable institution and they stated that they were not trustees but owners of the property in suit. They denied that they committed any breach of trust and they also asserted that they were not liable to render any account of their management. The District Court passed a decree removing Chintaman Bajaji Deo and Appaji Deo from trusteeship of the Sansthan and appointing new trustees, after framing a new scheme. There was an appeal against this decision of the District Court, being Appeal No. 71 of 1886, by Chintaman Bajaji Dev, and this Court confirmed the decree of the lower Court. The case was sent back to the District Court to take accounts and also to report as to the best mode of providing, in the future, for the management, both secular and spiritual, of several shrines and their endowments, after giving notices to the parties to the suit. Since the defendants had asserted their private ownership to the suit properties, this Court also reserved to the defendants

"the rights, in execution of this decree, to show that certain of the lands mentioned in the plaint as belonging to the Sansthan were not included in the property appropriated to the Sansthan by the Peshwas award or in subsequent grants."

This case is reported in Chintaman Bajaji Dev v. Dhondo Ganesh Dev, ILR 15 Bom 612. Chintaman appears to have died subsequently and in accordance with the direction of this Court, his son Appaji submitted Darkhast Application No. 10 of 1891 in the District Court at Poona as owner and male heir of Chintaman, and in that darkhast he prayed for a declaration that the properties mentioned in the annexure to the application were of his private ownerships and for delivering the same in his possession by right of ownership after taking them out of possession of the Sansthans trustees. It seems that the District Court gave its decision in the said darkhast on 20th March

Click Here to Read the rest of this document