Jagat Narayan, J.—This revision application arises out of a suit under sec. 22, G. P. G. brought by the Collector of Udaipur, in exercise of the powers of the Advocate-General conferred on him by the Government of Rajasthan against Goswami Govindlalji Maharaj and some other defendants including three deities Shri Nathji, Shri Navnit Priyaji and Shri Madan Mohanlalji installed in the temple at Nathdwara. Goswami Govindlalji Maharaj defendant No. 1 is the present manager of the deities. Defendants 3 to 12 are members of an ad hoc committee of management who manage the affairs of the temple along with defendant No. 1. A scheme of management was filed along with the plaint and it was prayed that this scheme might be given effect to under the provisions of sec. 92, C. P. C. In their written statements all the defendants except No. 7 accepted all the allegations made in the plaint and expressed their agreement to the proposed scheme. Defendant No. 7 opposed the scheme and the plaintiff filed an application praying that he may be removed from the array of defendants.

2. The present applicant Goswami Shri Ghanshyamlalji filed an application before the District Judge in whose court the above suit was pending under O. 1, R. 10, C. P. C. praying that he may be impleaded as a party. He is admittedly one of the descendants of Shrimad Vallabhacharya, who founded the endowment in suit. His case is that the trust in question is not one of a public nature to which sec. 92, G. P. G. is applicable. He claims that it is a private trust. The applicant also alleges that the proposed scheme is defective and he wishes to put forward suggestions for its improvement, so that the worship of the deity may be carried on in accordance with the traditions in the peculiar form in which it has all along been performed. He claims that being a direct descendant of the founder he is entitled to participate in the Sewa and Puja and being interested in the spiritual and temporal management, he is a fit and proper person to be impleaded as a party so that he may have say in the matter of the framing of a scheme of management.

3. The application was opposed on behalf of the plaintiff and the learned District Judge rejected it mainly on the ground that it was open to him to bring a separate suit to vindicate his private rights. As for the applicants contention that he was interested in the management of the temple being a direct descendant of the founder, the learned District Judge dismissed it by saying that his interest was "remote, illusory and future".

4. Against the above order the present application was filed, which has been opposed on behalf of the Collector and some of the defendants in the suit. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. First, it was contended on behalf of the applicant that he is a necessary party to the present suit as the decree passed in it will debar him from vindicating his private rights by a separate suit. In support of the proposition that the judgment in a suit under sec. 92 operates as res judicata so far as private rights of any sort are concerned reliance was placed on Ramadas vs. Hanumantha Rao (1) and the observations of Desai J. in Anjuman Islamia vs. Latafat Ali. (2).

6. In the Madras case the plaintiffs father was dismissed from the office of Dharam Karta in 1902 and died in 1905. In 1903 a suit was filed by the first defendant and another under sec. 539, C. P. C. and a scheme of management was framed under which the defendants were appointed trustees of the temple. The plaintiff was a minor at that time. He brought the suit on attaining majority asking for re instalment in office of Dharam Karta on the ground that his family held the hereditary trusteeship on the temple. It was found that the plaintiff did have a hereditary right to be appointed trustee. It was held that "a scheme framed under sec. 539 is binding on all (whether worshippers or not) including even one who might have claimed a hereditary trusteeship and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document