The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint Receivers to ensure proper accountability and smooth functioning of a temple during a legal heir's bari.

JUDGMENT :

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

CM APPL. 2915/2021(for exemption)

2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. Application is disposed of.

CM APPL. 2916/2021 (for dispensing service to Respondents No. 2 to 6)

4. Considering the nature of the disputes, this Court deems it appropriate to issue notice to Respondents Nos. 2 to 6. Let notice be served through the counsel appearing for the said Respondents before the trial court. Application is disposed of.

FAO 36/2021 and CM APPL. 2914/2021 (for stay), & CM APPL. 3573/2021 (for appointment of Receiver)

5. The dispute in the present case concerns the Kalkaji mandir wherein various factions claim rights for conducting the puja sewa, share in the offerings and revenues from other moveable/immoveable assets including teh- bazari rights.

6. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Defendants (hereinafter, “Defendants”) challenging the impugned order dated 16th January, 2021, passed by the Additional District Judge, South East District, Saket Courts, vide which Respondent No. 1/ Plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘Plaintiff’) has been given the bari for performing the puja sewa at Sh. Kalkaji Mandir. Vide the impugned order, the ld. Trial Court has held as under:

“39. It is an admitted fact that plaintiff is one of the legal heir of the deceased Sh. Kali Charan. It is also an admitted fact that Late Sh. Kali Charan is entitled for his share in thula Jasram to the extent of 3pies. On the basis of abovementioned judgment plaintiff is able to make out a prima facie case in her favour and balance of convenience also lies in her favour being a legal heir of deceased Sh. Kali Charan and if her application for this time / bari is not be allowed / adjudicated upon she would undoubtedly suffer a loss. Accordingly, she is entitled for her right in the Pooja Sewa, Tehbazari and other collections during this bari in the Temple Kalkaji for the period abovementioned, in the share of her father Late Sh. Kali Charan, to the extent of her l/6th share. However, I am not commenting upon the ceremonies of Kalkaji Temple that puja sewa is to be performed only by a male member if that is the case then the plaintiff can exercise her right by appointing any male on her behalf as initially also the same was done by Sh. Ajay Kumar @Ajay Bhardwaj.

7. From a perusal of the impugned order above, it is clear that there is no dispute that the Plaintiff is one of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Kali Charan Sharma, and is entitled to 1/6th share of her late father in the Kalkaji Temple. Even before this Court, the said facts are not disputed during submissions. It is also not disputed that the bari changes every month and the present bari, which is between 24th January, 2021 till 23rd February, 2021, is of the Plaintiff. Since as per the customs of Kalkaji Mandir, it was submitted to the ld. Trial Court that only a male member can conduct the puja sewa, the trial court permitted the Plaintiff to exercise her right by appointing a male member on her behalf.

8. The grievance of the Defendants was that the Defendants’ being the male legal heirs ought to be permitted to continue to perform the puja sewa and they would give the 1/6th share to the Plaintiff, who being a female ought not be given the right to nominate anyone on her behalf.

9. On 1st February, 2021, when the matter was listed before this Court, detailed submissions were heard on behalf of both the sides. It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff and the Defendants belong to the same family and are the legal heirs of Late Sh. Kali Charan Sharma. The bari prior to 24th January, 2021 is stated to have been that of other members of the family, and as per the Plaintiff some persons authorised by the Defendants were performing the puja sewa in an unauthorised manner as the Defendants have in fact sold the bari to the said individuals. Ld. Counsel for the Defendants disputed the said position.

10. In view of the co