The Civil Court has jurisdiction to hear suits claiming hereditary rights unless explicitly barred; prior judgments must be assessed for relevance in context.

ORDER :

Heard the contesting parties finally at the admission stage with their consent. As the matter pertains to order passed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to the “C.P.C.”), applicants and the respondent No. 1 are the contesting parties, who are original defendant No. 1 and plaintiff respectively in Spl. C. S. No. 16 of 2024.

2. Applicants are aggrieved by rejection of their application Exhibit 95 vide order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to reject the plaint.

3. Respondent No. 1 has filed Spl. C. S. No. 16 of 2024 for the relief of declaration and injunction. It is contended that applicant is a trust having old temple of Balaji at Parola. Remaining applicants are office bearers of the trust. It is contended that plaintiff since his forefathers is working as Archak in the Balaji temple. It is their hereditary right which is being exercised continuously since the year 1900. He is being discontinued by the trustees from 25.08.2024 and he is being replaced by the applicant No. 16. This action is sought to be challenged in the suit on the ground that no proper procedure has been followed and it is in defiance of easementary right.

4. Applicants contested the suit by filing written statement challenging all the contentions of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff. In paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the written statement hereditary right of Archakship is challenged relying on Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC TRUST ACT (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to the “Act”). They further filed application Exhibit 95 U/O VII Rule 11 of the C. P. C. to reject the plaint predominantly on the following grounds :

(i) Bar under the Constitution,

(ii) Bar under the provisions of the CONTRACT ACT and the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT ,

(iii) Bar under the provisions of the MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC TRUST ACT .

5. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed say to the application. Applicants also tendered on record written submissions and thereafter a pursis. By order dated 15.04.2025 Exhibit 95 is rejected. Hence they have approached this Court.

6. Mr. B. R. Waramaa, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondent No. 1 is asserting his right as Archak being easementary right, which is against the Constitution of India and it’s basic structure. The claim of easementary right is against the Easement Act. The relief sought in the plaint is founded on misconceived notion of right to perform puja, which is not absolute and which is against public policy. It is submitted that right claimed by the respondent No. 1 is against the provisions of the CONTRACT ACT and the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT .

7. It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Waramaa, learned counsel for the applicants that learned Trial Judge did not bother to consider the Constitution Bench judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sheshammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 2 SCC 11 , the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Sri Ramchandra and others Vs. Sri Shivram and others reported in 2008 (5) KCCR 664 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dated 05.02.2025 in Writ Petition No. 3838 of 2025 in the matter of A. Rajendran Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Coimbatore District. Those were specifically referred in the written submissions, but still overlooked by the learned Trial Court, which amounts to judicial indiscipline.

8. It is submitted that the Trial Court is bound by the ratio laid do