Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
BHAGWATI, CHAINANI, JJ.
Mahadoba Devasthan
Versus
Mahadba Romaji Bidkar
First Appeal No.434 of 1948,
Decided On : 19-12-1951
HINDU LAW - RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS - SUIT FOR SETTING ASIDE ALIENATIONS - RIGHT TO SUE - WHETHER VESTED IN THE IDOL OR THE SHEBAIT - WHETHER SUIT CAN BE FILED IN THE NAME OF THE IDOL BY THE SHEBAIT - WHETHER THE SHEBAIT CAN FILE A SUIT IN HIS OWN NAME - DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMPLETE AND PARTIAL DEDICATION - GRANT OF LANDS FOR WORSHIP, NAIVEDYA AND FESTIVAL OF GOD - WHETHER AN ABSOLUTE GRANT OR A PARTIAL DEDICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, filed a suit against the defendants for two declarations, one that the sale-deeds of the suit lands were void and the lands were of the ownership of Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, and two, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of S.nos.240A, 242, 243 and 244 from the Government and recover possession of S.No.245 from the defendants. The defences taken up were that Keshav Waman Waghule was not the vahivatdar, defendant 3 being the vahivatdar of Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, that the suit properties were not the Devasthan properties, that the alienations were valid and binding on the plaintiff and that the suit was barred by limitation, the defendants having been in adverse possession of the properties for more than the prescriptive period. The learned trial Judge held the existence of the Shree Mahadoba Devasthan and the grant of the suit properties to the said Devasthan proved. He also held proved that Ganoji bin Rakhamoji, the ancestor of original defendant 3, was a trustee and his trusteeship was hereditary. He, however, came to the conclusion that Keshav Waman Waghule was not entitled to bring the suit on behalf of Shree Mahadoba Devasthan. He, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs suit without recording his findings in regard to issues Nos.5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against that decision of the learned trial Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suit was properly filed in the name of Shri Mahadoba Devasthan the image or idol by its vahivatdar Keshav Waman Waghule. The Court also held that the properties which were the subject-matter of the suit were in fact Devasthan properties and not properties which had been given to the Waghules impressed with a charge for the worship of the image or the idol of Shree Mahadoba.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was properly filed in the name of Shri Mahadoba Devasthan the image or idol by its vahivatdar Keshav Waman Waghule? 2. Whether the properties which were the subject-matter of the suit were in fact Devasthan properties and not properties which had been given to the Waghules impressed with a charge for the worship of the image or the idol of Shree Mahadoba?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the suit was properly filed in the name of Shri Mahadoba Devasthan the image or idol by its vahivatdar Keshav Waman Waghule. The Court observed that the image or idol is a juridical person capable of holding property and also capable of suing or being sued. The Court also observed that the right to sue for the protection of the properties belonging to the image or idol is vested in the shebait and not in the image or the idol. However, the Court held that both these rights can exist simultaneously, so that if the suit is filed in the name of the image or idol, the image or the idol would be a proper plaintiff, though, as observed before, of necessity it would have to be represented in the suit by its manager or shebait. If the manager or the shebait on the other hand chooses in vindication of his right to sue for the protection of the properties to file a suit in his own name, he may just as well do so. But that would be no bar to the right of the image or the idol to file such a suit if it had chosen to do so. 2. The Court held that the properties which were the subject-matter of the suit were in fact Devasthan properties and not properties which had been given to the Waghules impressed with a charge for the worship of the image or the idol of Shree Mahadoba. The Court observed that the grant of the lands was primarily a grant to the religious foundation, that is, Shree Mahadoba and not to Ganoji bin Rakhamji Waghule for his own benefit or for the benefit of his sons, grandsons and so on.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the suit was remanded to the Court below for disposal according to law.
BHAGWATI, J. :- This is a first appeal from the decision of the learned Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) at Poona who dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff is the Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, Mouje Theur, Kasbe Poona, by its vahivatdar Keshav Waman Waghule, and the suit was filed by the plaintiff thus described against the original defendant 3 who was the then vahivatdar and the father of Keshav Waman Waghule and defendants 1 and 2 who were alienees of certain properties alleged to belong to the plaintiff for two declarations, one that the sale-deeds of the suit lands were void and the lands were of the ownership of Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, and two, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of S.nos.240A, 242, 243 and 244 from the Government and recover possession of S.No.245 from the defendants and costs of the suit. The defences which were taken up were that Keshav Waman Waghule was not the vahivatdar, defendant 3 being the vahivatdar of Shree Mahadoba Devasthan, that the suit properties were not the Devasthan properties, that the alienations were valid and binding on the plaintiff and that the suit was barred by limitation, the defendants having been in adverse possession of the properties for more than the prescriptive period. The learned trial Judge held the existence of the Shree Mahadoba Devasthan and the grant of the suit properties to the said Devasthan proved. He also held proved that Ganoji bin Rakhamoji, the ancestor of original defendant 3, was a trustee and his trusteeship was hereditary. He, however, came to the conclusion that Keshav Waman Waghule was not entitled to bring the suit on behalf of Shree Mahadoba Devasthan. He, therefore, dismissed the plaintiffs suit without recording his findings in regard to issues Nos.5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against that decision of the learned trial Judge.
2. The main question which has been agitated by Mr. Lulla for the plaintiff is that even if the lower Court came to the conclusion that Keshav Waman Waghule was not the vahivatdar of the Shree Mahadoba Davasthan, the order of dismissal was not justified because the plaintiff was Shree Mahadoba Devasthan to whom the suit properties belonged, and the mere fact of the suit having been filed in the name of Shree Mahadoba Devasthan by Keshav Waman Waghule describing himself as its vahivatdar did not vitiate the suit. Shree Mahadoba Devasthan is a description of the institution where the image of Shree Mahadoba has been installed and is worshipped. The image of Shree Mahadoba is, as has been held by the Privy Council, a juridical person and capable of holding property and also capable of suing or being sued. The contention, however, which was urged by the defendants and which found favour with the learned trial Judge was that even though the image of Shree Mahadoba was a juridical person the whole management of the properties belonging to the image could be and was carried on by its shebait or its vahivatdar and the right to sue for the protection of the properties belonging to the image of Shree Mahadoba was vested in the shebait and not in the image or the idol. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Jagadindra Nath v. Hemanta Kumari Debi, 32 Cal 129 P.C. where Sir Arthur Wilson observed (p.141) :
"But assuming the religious dedications to have been of the strictest character, it still remains that the possession and management of the dedicated property belongs to the shebait. And this carries with it the right to bring whatever suits are necessary for the protection of the property. Every such right of suit is vested in the shebait, not in the idol. And in the present case the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff when he was under age. The case therefore falls within the clear language of S.7, Limitation Act..."
These observations were particularly relied on for the purpose of shewing that the suit fo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
