SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 128

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
A, J
Deity of Sinhwahini Devi, Sinhwahini Mandir, Rajapara, Kanker – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Second Appeal | S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:[Advocate 1, Advocate 2]
For the Respondents:[Advocate 3, Advocate 4]

The position of Sarvarakar is not inheritable and requires legal appointment, especially under established public trust regulations.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts - Second Appeal under S.100 CPC - The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit declaring that the plaintiff No.2 is not the Sarvarakar of plaintiff No.1 and the registration of the Public Trust is valid - The appellate Court affirmed the decision, holding the Sarvarakar position is not inheritable without the requisite permissions under law and established the status of a Shebait and Pujari - The existence of a public trust negates the claim to Sarvarakar. (Paras 24, 25)

(B) Sarvarakar Role - The Sarvarakar as the manager of temple property cannot lay claim based on inheritance; it requires express appointment - The nature of the temple being public was established legally, negating exclusive claims by individuals. (Paras 12-19, 22)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed that the Deity is a juristic person and the temple was historically private until made public in 1985. The claim for ownership and management was opposed by the government entities citing public trust.

Findings of Court:
The Court found no documentation for the plaintiff No.2's claim to be Sarvarakar, re-confirming the lower Court's decision.

Issues: The court addressed whether the Sarvarakar role can be claimed by inheritance and if a public trust can be disregarded.

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the Sarvarakar role is not hereditary and depends on management appointment with approval from relevant authorities, emphasizing the distinction between private and public trusts.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. claims of ownership and management over temple property. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. defendants' claims against the plaintiff's assertion of sarvarakar. (Para 4 , 5)
3. legal characterization of sarvarakar's role. (Para 11 , 12)
4. court's dismissal of the second appeal based on established legal principles. (Para 24 , 25)

1.The instant second appeal under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the plaintiffs whose suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court, however, the appellate Court declared the title of the suit property in favour of the appellant No.1, Deity and dismissed the claim of the plaintiff No.2 / appellant No. 2 for a declaration as Sarvarakar of plaintiff No.1, Deity / temple.

2. Plaintiff No.1 is the Deity of Sinhwahini Devi, Sinhwahini Mandir, Rajapara, Kanker and plaintiff No.2 / appellant No.2 claims to be the Sarvarakar of plaintiff No.1. The following reliefs were claimed in the suit:
(i) Plaintiff No. 1 be declared the owner of land situated at 10 khasra numbers bearing an area of 30.00 acres at Village Banspattar and the temple situated on Nazul Plot No. 15 area 211 Square Meters.
(ii) Plaintiff No.2 Laxminarayan be declared the Sarvarakar of plaintiff No. 1, Deity.
(iii) The registration of public trust by defendant No. 1, State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Kanker and entry of the name of the Collector as Manager of the Trust be declared illegal, void and inoperative.
(iv) The constitution and registration of the Public Trust by the Registrar, Public Trusts, Kanker in Revenue Case No. 1 / B - 113/93-94 dated 16-8-1994 be declared illegal and ineffective.
(v) The defendants be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs possession in the suit land and temple.





3. The suit was filed on 11-4-1992 on the pleadings inter alia that the idol of Sinhwahini, being the plaintiff No.1, is a juristic person having been installed in the temple of Sinhwahini situated at Rajapara, Kanker. The said Deity was consecrated and installed by the erstwhile Ruler of Kanker State Shri Komaldeo as his Kul - Devi (family Deity) by constructing the temple at Rajapara. After his death, the legal heirs of the erstwhile Ruler continued to worship the Deity on the occasions of Ram - Navami, Dashehara, Deepawali and other special occasions and on rest of the days the temple used to be closed and the general public were not allowed to enter the temple. Thus, it was a private temple of the erstwhile Ruler, which was thrown open for the public in 1985 by the present head of the royal family, namely, Maharajadhiraj Shri Uday Pratap Deo. The Deity possesses 30.00 acres of land at Village Banspattar and an area of 211 square meters on Sheet No.13, Plot No. 15, at Rajapara, Kanker on which the temple has been constructed. According to the plaintiffs, the property was looked after and managed by its Sarvarakar Sunder Singh, Padum Singh and Pannalal, who are the ancestors of plaintiff No.2 Laxminarayan. Pannalal died in 1985 and thereafter plaintiff No.2 was appointed as Sarvarakar by the followers and worshippers of plaintiff No. 1, Deity and since then plaintiff No.2 is performing the job of Sarvarakar. The Tahsildar, Kanker illegally entered the name of Collector, Bastar as Manager of the agricultural lands in the year 1974-75 without informing plaintiff No. 1, whereas the Collector, Bastar has never taken any interest in the affairs of the temple. The Collector, Bastar has never been appointed as Manager by plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No.2 moved an application before the Additional Collector, Kanker for entering his name as Sarvarakar, which was rejected on 10-7-1990 and an order was passed to declare the temple as Public Trust. The said order or registration of Public Trust is illegal and void.

4. It was further stated in the plaint that after registration of the Public Trust, the defendants are interfering in the affairs of the temple, therefore, the present suit has been












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top