Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi vs Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLIII Rule 1(s) - Appointment of Receiver - Appeals against orders appointing District Magistrate as Receiver for the cellar of Vyas Ji Temple and allowing worship therein - Court found prima facie evidence of continuous possession by the Vyas family since 1551, interrupted only by state action in 1993 - The appointment of Receiver was justified to preserve the property during litigation, and the subsequent order correcting an omission in the first order was valid under Sections 151 and 152 CPC. (Paras 17, 31, 60, 165)

(B) Religious Rights - Article 25 of the Constitution - The right to perform religious worship was upheld, emphasizing that state actions restricting such rights without due process are impermissible. (Paras 128, 165)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a hereditary pujari, sought to perform rituals in the cellar of the Vyas Ji Temple, claiming continuous possession since 1551, disrupted by state orders in 1993. The District Judge appointed a Receiver to manage the cellar and allow worship. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for the appointment of a Receiver and that the state’s actions were arbitrary, infringing on religious rights. (Paras 165, 166)

Issues: Whether the appointment of a Receiver was justified and whether the orders violated principles of res judicata or exceeded the court's authority. (Paras 60, 165)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appointment of a Receiver was necessary to protect the property and that the correction of the omission in the order was valid under inherent powers of the court. (Paras 60, 165)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Two appeals challenging District Judge Varanasi orders appointing Receiver and directing worship in tehkhana cellar of alleged Gyanvapi Mosque under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )

2. Appellant challenged Receiver appointment and worship direction on grounds of settled Waqf status, res judicata, limitation, functus officio; respondent countered with possession evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 )

3. Both appeals dismissed; orders appointing District Magistrate Varanasi as Receiver and directing worship arrangements in tehkhana cellar upheld. (Para 165 , 166 , 167 )

4. Can a Receiver be appointed under Order XL Rule 1 CPC when the property is claimed to have been settled as Hanafi Muslim Waqf?

Yes. The Court has discretion under Order XL Rule 1 CPC to appoint a Receiver where it appears just and convenient. The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of possession, which the plaintiff did through maps and evidence of continuous worship since British era. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 111 , 112 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 165 )

5. Does an order correcting an omission in a prior order under Sections 151/152 CPC amount to a new order barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC?

No. Section 152 CPC permits correction of clerical, arithmetical mistakes or errors from accidental slip or omission. The order dated 31.01.2024 merely incorporated omitted relief (b) from application 9-C allowed in entirety on 17.01.2024, and does not amount to a new decree or final relief. (Para 53 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 160 , 161 )

6. Does an interlocutory mandatory injunction for worship arrangements in the cellar amount to final relief?

No. Interlocutory mandatory injunctions are granted to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status pending final hearing. Granting permission for worship under Receiver supervision only restores the pre-1993 status quo and does not determine the ultimate rights of the parties. (Para 33 , 34 , 36 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 129 , 130 )

7. Can the question of limitation under Order VII Rule 6 CPC be decided before issues are framed and evidence is taken?

No. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The plaint cannot be rejected on limitation grounds without proper pleading, framing of issues, and taking of evidence. The question must be decided only after issues are settled under Order XIV CPC. (Para 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 )

8. Does appointment of District Magistrate as Receiver under the Temple Act, 1983 create a clash of interest?

No. The District Magistrate acts in different capacities as ex-officio Member of the Board of Trustees, Member of the Executive Committee, and administrative head of the district. As Receiver, the DM acts under the Court direction and supervision, performing duties consistent with the Board statutory obligations under the Temple Act. (Para 26 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 )

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. These two appeals filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 (s) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter called as ‘CPC’) arise out of order dated 17.01.2024 and order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the District Judge, Varanasi on application 9-C filed under Order XL Rule 1 CPC in Original Suit No. 34 of 2023 (Shailendra Kumar Pathak vs. Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Maszid and Another).

2. F.A.F.O. (Defective) No. 136 of 2024 (New Number 226 of 2024) was nominated to this Court by orders of Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice dated 01.02.2024. F.A.F.O. (Defective) No. 156 of 2024 (New Number 227 of 2024) was nominated to this Court by the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice dated 06.02.2024. F.A.F.O. No. 227 of 2024 arises out of order dated 17.01.2024, while F.A.F.O. No. 226 of 2024 arises out of order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the District Judge, Varanasi.

3. Both these appeals are heard together with the consent of both the parties and are being decided together by a common judgment and order.

FACTS

4. The facts leading to filing of these two appeals are, that plaintiff respondent no. 1, Shailendra Kumar Pathak ‘Vyas’ filed an Original Suit No. 844 of 2023 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi against the appellant defendant no. 1 and Board of Trustees of Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple as defendant no. 2 claiming following reliefs:

“(a) Decree the suit for declaration declaring that Plaintiff is entitled to perform all the rituals of Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman and other visible and invisible deities within old temple complex and also within the cellar (Tehkhana) existing within temple of Lord Adi Visheshwar (alleged Gyanvapi Mosque) at Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty) Ward and P.S. Chowk District Varanasi.

(b) Decree the suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from creating any obstacle, hindrance or interference in performance of daily Pooja, Aarti, Bhog and observance of all the rituals of Maa Sringar Gauri, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman and other visible and invisible deities within the cellar (Tehkhana) existing within old temple of Lord Adi Visheshwar (alleged Gyanvapi Mosque) existing at Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty) Ward and P.S. Chowk District Varanasi.

(c) Deerce the suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from demolishing, damaging, destroying or causing any damage to the images of deities Goddess Maa Sringar Gauri at Asthan of Lord Adi Visheshwar along with Lord Ganesh, Lord Ganesh, Lord Hanuman, Nandiji and other visible and invisible deities within the cellar (Tehkhana) existing within old temple of Lord Adi Visheshwar (alleged Gyanvapi Mosque) existing at Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty) Ward and P.S. Chowk District Varanasi.

(d) Decree the suit for mandatory injunction directing Shri Kashi Vishwanath Trust Board to allow the Plaintiff, co-Pujaris and the devotees to perform Pooja and rituals within the cellar (Tehkhana) within old temple of Lord Adi Visheshwar (alleged Gyanvapi Mosque) existing at Settlement Plot No. 9130 (Ninety One Hundred and Thirty) within the area of P.S. Chowk, Varanasi after making suitable provisions and if required, making appropriate changes in the iron fencing for the said purpose within the time provided by the Hon’ble Court.

(e) Decree the suit for mandatory injunction directing the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Trust Board to act in accordance with Section 13 (Thirteen) and 14 (Fourteen) of Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (Nineteen Hundred Eighty-Three) and to make provisions for pooja and worship within cellar (Tehkhana) existing within settlement plot No. 9130 (Ninety-One Hundred and Thirty) of Shri Adi Visheshwar Temple Complex (alleged Gyanvapi mosque).

(f) Grant such other relief for which the Plaintiff may be found entitled to or which may be deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.

(g) Decree th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(All) 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi – Appellant
Versus
Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas and Another – Respondents
First Appeal From Order Nos. 226, 227 of 2024
Decided On : 26-02-2024

The court upheld the appointment of a Receiver to protect religious property, affirming the right to worship and correcting procedural omissions under inherent powers.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a Receiver be appointed under Order XL Rule 1 CPC when the property is claimed to have been settled as Hanafi Muslim Waqf?

5. Does an order correcting an omission in a prior order under Sections 151/152 CPC amount to a new order barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC?

6. Does an interlocutory mandatory injunction for worship arrangements in the cellar amount to final relief?

7. Can the question of limitation under Order VII Rule 6 CPC be decided before issues are framed and evidence is taken?

8. Does appointment of District Magistrate as Receiver under the Temple Act, 1983 create a clash of interest?

Judicial Analysis

2024 Supreme(All) 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABADROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi – AppellantVersusShailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas and Another – RespondentsFirst Appeal From Order Nos. 226, 227 of 2024Decided On : 26-02-2024

The court upheld the appointment of a Receiver to protect religious property, affirming the right to worship and correcting procedural omissions under inherent powers.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a Receiver be appointed under Order XL Rule 1 CPC when the property is claimed to have been settled as Hanafi Muslim Waqf?

5. Does an order correcting an omission in a prior order under Sections 151/152 CPC amount to a new order barred by res judicata under Section 11 CPC?

6. Does an interlocutory mandatory injunction for worship arrangements in the cellar amount to final relief?

7. Can the question of limitation under Order VII Rule 6 CPC be decided before issues are framed and evidence is taken?

8. Does appointment of District Magistrate as Receiver under the Temple Act, 1983 create a clash of interest?

Cases Referred (44)

Judicial Analysis

Related Judgments

Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi VS Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas - 2024 Supreme(All) 559

Mulji Umershi Shah vs Paradesia Builders Private Limited - 1998 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3

On The Death Of Aruna Sharma Her Legal Heir, Shri Himadri Sharma, S/o Lt. Paban Kumar Sharma VS HDFC Bank Ltd. - 2021 Supreme(Gau) 375

Aruna Sarma VS HDFC Bank - 2021 Supreme(Gau) 721

Pallab Bhattacharjee and Others v. Srimanta Majumder - 2014 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 62

Vinod Kumar VS Thakur Murli Manoharji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Lala Munna Lal - 2018 Supreme(All) 2236

Mahendra Mangruram Gupta VS Rajdai Nandlal Shaw - 2022 Supreme(Bom) 2001

Balkrishna Appayya Shetty VS Hemant H Thakkar - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1078

Ishwar Chanda Sharma VS Devendra Kumar Sharma - 2025 Supreme(SC) 839

ALGAMA v. BUDDHARAKKITA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi – Appellant
Versus
Shailendra Kumar Pathak Vyas and Another – Respondents
First Appeal From Order Nos. 226, 227 of 2024
Decided On : 26-02-2024