SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT AND Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
Controller of Court of Ward, Kolhapur and another, Appellants
Versus
G. N. Ghorpade and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1319 and 1320 of 1967, D/- 12-12-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. S. Desai, Sr. Advocate (M/s. S. P. Nayar and B. D. Sharma, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. M. C. Chagla, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. D. N. Mishra and J. B. Dadachanji, Advocates, of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji & Co., Advocates, with him) (for No. 1) and Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate (for No. 2), for Respondents.
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Section 56(c) – Trust - Dispute between the parties may first be stated - Respondent 1 was at all material times jagirdar having succeeded to jagir on the death of his father - It appears that said one assigned Survey of village to the family deity, and other deities established in his Wada, i.e., in his residence - Entries relating to such assignment were duly made in revenue records of village then maintained by jagir - Similarly, said one assigned Survey , another temple - These survey numbers were thereupon entered in the said revenue records as having been so assigned to said deity – Held, learned counsel appearing for appellants argued that High Court erred in rejecting appellants application for filing their counter-affidavit and thus enable them to challenge correctness of statements made by respondent in his two special civil applications - He also argued that appellants were not to be blamed for not having filed their counter-affidavit in time since they were under the impression that special civil applications would not be proceeded with after Government had cancelled the said notification - There being thus no reply to two special civil applications, High Court had to accept the statements made on affidavit by respondent therein as prima facie evidence of his right to possession of lands in question – Learned counsel frankly told us that that was inevitable result flowing from the absence of any counter-affidavit denying assertions made on affidavit by respondent 1 - Consequence of absence of any reply affidavit was that learned counsel could not urge any specific ground upon which judgment of High Court could be challenged by him - That being the position, there is no alternative except to dismiss appeals - Respondent 1 will get the costs in one set only - Appeals dismissed.
Judgment
SHELAT, J. :- These two appeals by certificate challenge the judgment and order dated August 20, 1965/October 18, 1965, passed by the High Court of Bombay in two special civil applications filed by respondent 1, by which the High Court ordered the appellants to hand over possession of the lands in question to respondent 1.
2. The facts leading to the dispute between the parties may first be stated. Respondent 1 was at all material times the jagirdar of Ichalkaranji, having succeeded to the jagir on the death of his father Narayanrao in 1943. It appears that in 1919 the said Narayanrao assigned Survey No. 8 of Ichalkaranji village to the family deity, Vyankatesh Dev and other deities established in his Wada, i.e., in his residence. Entries relating to such assignment were duly made in the revenue records of the village then maintained by the jagir. Similarly, Narayanrao assigned Survey Nos. 106, 107, 108 and 135 of Bhadwandi to Narayan Dev, another temple in Ichalkaranji village. These survey numbers were thereupon entered in the said revenue records as having been so assigned to the said deity.
3. In 1943, when respondent 1 succeeded his father to the jagir, he was a minor. The Kolhapur State, therefore, took over the management of the jagir property as also the private property of the jagirdar. This management continued with the Kolhapur State until its merger with the then Bombay State in March 1949. On such merger the Government of Bombay took over the management of the said properties. On April 4, 1957, the State Government handed over the said properties to respondent 1 but not the said survey numbers assigned as aforesaid by Narayanrao to the said deities.
4. While the said properties were under the management first of the Kolhapur State and then of the Bombay Government, the income arising from the said survey numbers used to be deposited in the treasury to the credit of the said deities. According to respondent 1, the Government passed a resolution, dated April 19, 1954 whereby it recognised Vyankatesh Dev and Narayan Dev and other deities installed in the said temples at Ichalkaranji village as the private deities of respondent 1. On August 28, 1956, the Collector of Kolhapur directed that the accumulated income of the said properties under management of the Government should be handed over to the Court of Wards. Before this order could be implemented, respondent 1, presumably because he must have by that time attained majority, was handed over possession of the said estate as also the said accumulated income. Possession of the said survey numbers, however, was not handed over to respondent 1 on behalf of the said deities, although the said deities were recognised by Government as the private deities of respondent 1. It was the case of respondent 1 that ever since 1949 the Government had been paying to the pujari of Vyankatesh Dev certain amounts from time to time out of the income of the lands in dispute. On August 7, 1953, the Collector passed an order sanctioning the payment of arrears and continuance of future payment to the said pujari. Similar payments on behalf of Narayan Dev temple were also made from time to time to respondent 1 from out of the income of the survey numbers assigned to that deity.
5. On August 15, 1960, respondent 1 dedicated the Narayan Dev Temple to the public. He also got prepared a scheme for the management of that temple and had the said trust registered as a public trust. The Commissioner of Charities accepted the said scheme for management prepared by respondent 1.
6. The said survey numbers, however, remained in possession of the Government as Government on one ground or the other refused to part with their possession notwithstanding demands made therefor by respondent 1. On July 30, 1963, the Government issued a notification declaring under Section 56 (c) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 a large number of temples, mosques and other endowments including the said two temples to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.