JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Solapur dated 13-6-1988 in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1984. By this order the first Appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit preferred by the respondents as barred by jurisdiction and instead remanded the matter to the trial Court for reconsideration in view of the observations made in the impugned judgment.

2.Briefly stated, the disputed structure is situated at Gram Panchayat No. 537 of Village Mardi, District Solapur admeasuring 1234 sq.ft. The appellants had filed application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner bearing No. 174 of 1966, some time on 13th July, 1966, praying for the registration of the public trust on the premise that the suit property belongs to Shahi Masjid. This application was decided on 27th July, 1966 in favour of the appellants as there was no contest to that application. As a consequence of that order, the trust was ordered to be registered. The respondents however, filed suit on 28th November 1966 alleging that the suit property belonged to the Hindu Community Hemadpanthi of Shri Mahadeo (plaintiff No. 1 respondent No. 1 herein) which was known in the past as Shri Shivalaya temple or Siddeshwar temple. Following reliefs are claimed in the said suit, which read thus:

"(A) It be declared that the suit property is an old Hindu Hemadpanthi temple of Shri Mahadeo (plaintiff No. 1) i.e. a Shivalaya, which was also known in the past as Shree Siddeshwar Temple in which the Hindus including the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 have a right to worship plaintiff No. 1 and other deities in that temple;

(B) That the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 individually and as representatives of the Muslims of that village be permanently restrained from interfering with and disturbing the Hindus of Mardi village in general and the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 in particular in their vahivat and worship of all the deities in the Hindu temple described in para 1 of the plaint;

(C) They also alternatively pray that the Muslims of that village in general and the defendants 1 to 5 in particular, be ordered to deliver possession of the said property in suit to the plaintiffs as representatives of plaintiff No. 1 deity and of the Hindus of the Village Mardi, in case, the Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff Nos. 1 to 5 are not in possession of it, at the date of suit.

(D) The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 be ordered to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs; and

(E) This Court may also be pleased to pass any other just and equitable orders that it may deem fit."

3.While the aforesaid suit was pending, two persons belonging to Hindu Community challenged the abovesaid order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner before the Charity Commissioner, being Appeal Nos. 104 and 108 of 1966. Besides, a separate application was filed being Application No. 241/1966 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 6-9-1966 for registration of the suit property as a Mahadeo Mandir trust. Initially this proceeding was stayed till the decision of the appeal filed before the Charity Commissioner. Later on said Application No. 241 of 1966 was rejected with an observation that it will be open to the applicant to file a fresh application after the original Application No. 174/1966 is finally decided. The aforesaid Appeals Nos. 104 and 108 of 1966 were partly allowed by the Charity Commissioner on October, 18, 1969 and he was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and remanded the Application No. 174 of 1966 for fresh enquiry. After this order, persons belonging to Hindu Community made application for registration of the temple as a trust, being Application No. 60 of 1970. Both the applications were to be heard together. Accordingly, Public Notice was also issued on 29-8-1979, as required under the Rules. It is relevant to note that, parties to the present proc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document