Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Agarwala and Sahai, JJ.
MUKUNDJI MAHRAJ - Appellant
Versus
PERSOTAM LALJI MAHRAJ - Respondents
First Appeal 579 Of 1945
Decided On : 05/06/1955
IDOL - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - REPRESENTATION - DECREES AGAINST IDOL - BINDING EFFECT - LEGAL NECESSITY - ALIENATION OF TEMPLE - LIMITATION - RES JUDICATA.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an idol, sued for possession of half of a temple which had been sold in execution of a decree obtained against the idol by a creditor. The idol was represented in the suit by a Mahant who was not the de jure or de facto Mahant.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the idol was not properly represented in the suit and that the decree was, therefore, not binding on the idol. The court also held that the loan taken by the Mahant was not for legal necessity and that the temple could not be sold in execution of the decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the idol was properly represented in the suit in which the decree was obtained against it? 2. Whether the loan taken by the Mahant was for legal necessity? 3. Whether the temple could be sold in execution of the decree?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the idol was not properly represented in the suit because the Mahant who represented the idol was not the de jure or de facto Mahant. 2. The court held that the loan taken by the Mahant was not for legal necessity because there was no evidence that the income from the idol's property was insufficient to meet the expenses of the idol. 3. The court held that the temple could not be sold in execution of the decree because a temple is inalienable property.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below, and decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.
( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for a declaration that proceedings in Suits Nos. 503 of 1928 and 138 of 1930 and 66 of 1937 do not bind the plaintiff and that the plaintiff may be awarded possession over the property in dispute. The plaintiff is an idol Sri Thakur Mukundji maharaj, installed in a temple, situate in mohalla Bengali Gnat in the city of Mathura. The idol sues through its next friend Surra Chaube who claims to be its Manager. The defendant is one Goswami Purshottam Lalji who is the purchaser at auction of half of the temple in which the plaintiff idol is installed. The property in dispute is this half portion of the temple which has been taken possession of by the defendant in the following circumstances.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff idol was under the Shebaitship of one Mahant Bhagwat Das who was a follower of the Vaishnavite Ramanandi Sampradaya. Earlier history of the shebaits of the idol is not known. But it is common ground that the Shebaits had been Bairagis, that is to say, Vaishnavites who had renounced the world. Mahant, Bhagwat Das made a will on 11-9-1922, which was duly registered and by which he nominated Narsingh Das to succeed him as Mahant and appointed five trustees to look after the management of the idols properties.
( 3 ) BHAGWAT pas died in 1923 and Narsingh Das, as provided in the will, became the Manager of the temple and its property. Narsingh Das borrowed a sum of Rs. 380/- under a promissory note executed by him from one Mathura Dass Thackersay, belonging to Ballabhkul Sampradaya. It was mentioned in the promissory note that the amount was needed for the purpose of ragbhog expenses of the idol.
( 4 ) NAR Singh Das died some time in the beginning of 1928 and thereafter Mathura Dass thackersay brought a suit upon his promissory note, being Suit No. 503 of 1928 against the idol sri Thakur Mukund Ji Maharaj under the guardianship of one Kanhaiya Lal, alleged to be a disciple of Narsingh Das deceased. To this suit three other persons were impleaded as defendants, namely, Kanhaiya Lal personally, Sukhbasi, brother of Narsingh Das and Narain das, the excluded chela. Narain Das was, however, later on exempted from the suit which was not defended by any other defendant, and Mathura Das Thackersay obtained an ex parte decree on 1-12-1928 against the idol under the guardianship of Kanhaiya Lal and Kanhaiya Lal and Sukhbasi for Rs. 428/- and rs. 48/7/6 as costs. It may be noted that the trustees were no party to this suit. In the plaint it was stated that Narsingh Das having died "there was a dispute as to the succession to the Mahantship between Kanhaiya Lal, Sukhbasi and Narain Das" and that for that reason all three of them had been impleaded in the suit.
( 5 ) NARAIN Das filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on 30-5-1929 alleging that he was the Manager and mutwalli of the idol after the death of Narsingh Das. that Kanhaiya Lal or Sukhbasi had nothing to do with the management, that fraudulently he had been exempted from the suit and an ex parte decree had been obtained against the idol and that the idol will suffer irreparable loss if the ex parte decree was not set aside. This application was dismissed but it does not appear on what grounds as the Judgment is not on the record. Thereafter in 1929 Mathura Dass Thackersay put his decree in execution and had one half of the temples building attached and sold at auction. The sale was held in favour of the defendant goswami Purshottam Lalji Maharaj. For what sum the sale was held is also not known as the sale certificate is not on the record. But it appears that some amount which is, according to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,600/- was still lying in Court as the property of the judgment-debtor after satisfying the decretal amount in full.
( 6 ) NARAIN Das brought a suit (No. 222 of 1929) on behalf of the idol through himself as its manager and Impleaded himself as plaintiff 2 as against Sukhbasi and K
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
