Point of Law : Respondent seems to have monopolised bari and related rights, and is also not giving any proper accounts qua said bari - Court Receivers for the period said two Receivers are permitted to visit in order to put locks on donation boxes and take all required steps to assess offerings and donations as also teh-bazari

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through Video Conferencing.

CM APPLs. 14179-81/2021(for exemptions)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.

CM(M) 323/2021 & CM APPL. 14178/2021 (for appointment of receiver)

3. The present petition relates to the Mandir Shree Kalkaji and is a dispute amongst the various factions (baridaars) claiming rights for conducting the puja sewa, share in the offerings and revenues from other moveable/immovable assets including teh-bazari rights, in relation to their shashmahi bari, which comes every 12 years during the two Navratri periods.

4. A suit was filed by the Respondent in the present petition, in which a final judgment was passed by the Civil Judge-5, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, on 28th October, 2014, wherein it was held as under:

“19. While deciding issue no.5 it has already been held that the females are entitled to perform pooja sewa at the Mandir Shri Kalkaji and to receive offerings and tehbazari. Accordingly, late Smt. Bishan Devi, i.e., daughter of late Sh. Ram Swaroop and mother of defendant no.23, had a right to perform pooja sewa and to receive tehbazari, offerings etc. by employing a deputy in this regard. After death of late Smt. Bishan Devi, the said right was inherited by defendant no.23 being her son and, therefore, plaintiff has no right to realize the 1/61h share of late Sh. Ram Swaroop.

In view of above said, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for. Issue no.6 is decided accordingly.

20. It is already held while deciding issue no.5 and 6 that defendant no.23 inherited the right of realization of 1/6th share of late Sh. Ram Swaroop in offerings and tehbazari, from his mother, who was daughter of late Sh. Ram Swaroop and, therefore, he is the heir of late Sh. Ram Swaroop, in this regard.”

5. The dispute is in respect of the heirs of late Mr. Ram Swaroop. The Petitioner is the Defendant No.23 in the said suit and his mother was late Mrs. Bishan Devi. The Petitioner’s share was clearly determined to be 1/6th share in the judgment of the Trial Court dated 28th October 2014, and after holding so, the suit of the Plaintiff i.e., Respondent No.1 was dismissed by the said Court. The Plaintiff/ Respondent No.1 is stated to have filed an appeal against the said judgment dated 28th October 2014, before the District Judge, which is pending, however, there is no stay that has been granted on the judgment passed by the Civil Judge.

6. The shashmahi bari was during the Dussehra Navratra period in October, 2020, as also the current bari during the navratras which commenced on 24/15th March and ends on 22/23rd April, 2021.

7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he is not being permitted to exercise his rights in the current bari because his mother, late Mrs. Bishan Devi, being a woman, is being considered as a person who cannot exercise her rights qua the said bari, being a female heir. This is despite the judgement passed by the trial court.

8. Mr. Thakur Sumit, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Respondent No.1 himself has filed applications for appointment of court receivers before the Trial Court, however, both the applications are still pending. In the current bari also, the Petitioner, is not being permitted to participate and take his fair share, which has been determined as 1/6th by the Trial Court, in the said bari. The Petitioner, accordingly prays for appointment of a court receiver so that his rights qua the said bari are secured and it is ascertained as to how much money would be due to the Petitioner, by virtue of his fair share.

9. On behalf of Respondent No.17 also, an application is stated to have been filed for appointment of court receivers. Further, it is also argued by Mr. Chokkar, ld. counsel for Respondent No. 17, that Respondent No.1 has monopolised the entire bari by use of force and is not permitting any other baridar to enjoy the