The court affirmed that female heirs have equal rights to perform rituals and manage offerings in religious spaces, countering male domination in such practices.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Dispute regarding ritual rights in Mandir - Appointment of court receivers for managing offerings and donations - Right of female heir to perform rituals established. (Paras 4-22)

(B) Rights of Female Heir - Court affirmed that female legal heirs are entitled to perform puja sewa and receive offerings, dismantling male preferential treatment in a religious context. (Paras 12, 4)

(C) Court’s previous orders in similar cases upheld, ensuring fair management and distribution of donations at the temple. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The case involves the rights of baridaars, specifically the inheritance of right by the female heir of late Ram Swaroop and disputes over the performance of puja sewa and the related offerings during the Navratra period, with tensions arising from management at Kalkaji Mandir.

Findings of Court:
The court appointed receivers to regulate offerings and ensure accountability regarding the share distribution during the current bari while reaffirming entitlement rights based on prior rulings.

Issues: The court addressed the legitimacy of restrictions placed on female heirs regarding their rights in the mandir’s ritual practices, and the management of offerings in light of ongoing litigations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that inheriting rights of ritual performance cannot be denied based on gender, reinforcing past decisions that acknowledged the rights of women as legal heirs in temple affairs.

Result: Court receivers appointed for managing affairs at Kalkaji Mandir and to secure the petitioner's rights as a baridar.

Table of Content
1. ownership rights over temple offerings (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
2. petitioner's grievance over participation rights (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's previous rulings on women's rights (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. appointment of receivers for oversight (Para 13 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. next steps in legal proceedings (Para 17 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--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 b