Honble BALI, J.–What started of as pure and simple dispute between late Prakash Chandra Swami and the Government of Rajasthan in the matter of Mandir Madho Behariji, Station Road, Jaipur to be a government Supurdgi Class temple or Thikana temple has now petered out to be a pure and simple dispute of managing Mandir Madho Behariji which takes in its sweep succession to the properties as well between the heirs of Prakash Chandra Swami. It is conceded at all ends that in the temple in dispute, there are offerings made by the people in general and in addition to that there is considerable income which is received by those who are managing the properties in the shape of rentals for several houses and shops attached to the temple.

(2). The first and foremost question that needs determination in the present special appeal filed under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is as to whether a dispute of the kind as mentioned above could be allowed to be converted into a succession dispute inter se members of the family of Prakash Chandra Swami.

(3). With a view to determine the issue as framed even though the learned Single Judge has given the facts succinctly, the same would need reiteration.

(4). Prakash Chandra Swami son of late Tota Ram Swami, Mandir Sri Madho Behariji, Station Road, Jaipur filed an application u/Sec. 17(2) of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). The matter was enquired into and it was registered as a public trust on 21.12.1970 by Devasthan Department. Against the order aforesaid, Commissioner, Devasthan Deptt. ordered further enquiry. In compliance of the said order, show cause notice was issued. Mahant Shri Prakash Chandra Swami did not file any reply even though he placed on record some documents. Attention of the learned Assistant Commissioner Devasthan was drawn to the provisions of Sec. 29 of the Act and it was urged that under the said provisions, the Assistant Commissioner could conduct further enquiry only if the property was left out to be registered or any particular was left to be enquired into and not otherwise. It was further urged that under the provisions contained in Sec. 21 of the Act, registration of the Trust in dispute had already been done after following entire procedure as contemplated in the provisions of the Act and there was no legal provision providing for further enquiry into the matter to reconsider the case in which certificate of registration under Rule 19 has already been issued. Prayer was thus made not to hold any further enquiry. Learned Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 21.7.1980 held that at the time of registration of Mandir Shri Madho Behariji, entire legal procedure was followed and all the documents perused and then registration was done, which would leave no room for any re- enquiry. It was further held ``So far as the question of declaring the Thikana Shri Madho Behariji after re-enquiry as of Supurdgi category is concerned, I am at conclusion that until the Rajasthan Government does not withdraw its order declaring that the Mandir is not of Supurdgi category, till then declaring the Mandir of Supurdgi category is not justified. Notice u/S. 24 of the Act was quashed. Inspector, Devasthan Deptt. Jaipur preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.7.1980 and the Commissioner, Devasthan Deptt. vide order dated 26.10.1981 (Annex. 17) allowed the same and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Before so ordering, it was held ``Under orders of erstwhile Maharaja Man Singh of Jaipur State the disputed Mandir was entrusted to ancestor of respondent No. 1 Shri Totaram by appointing him hereditary Mahant for Sewa Puja as per procedure on customary basis and for security of property of the mandir. Therefore, inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner is required as to whether Sewa Puja is being performed by the respondent No.1 himself or not and telling rosary is being do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document