Important point
A suit to establish a right to be hereditary ‘archaks’ (Pujaris) in a temple and a share in the offerings made to the deity is a suit in relation to personal/private right of archaks, not covered by Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.

Headnote:Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950—Sections 50, 51, 79 and 80—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 9—Suit filed for declaration that plaintiffs are hereditary archaks of Shri Mahaganapathy (Vinayak Dev) Temple of Idagunji—Claim of a share in the offerings made to the deity—Nature of suit—Plea of bar created by Section 50 of the Act—According to plaintiffs, their family has been performing poojapali and exercising the rights incidental thereto since ancient times—Their claim that trustees are only managers of the properties of the trust, having no right to remove hereditary archaks like plaintiffs—Plaintiffs also claimed that they are entitled to emoluments in the form of share in the offerings made by devotees—Whether suit filed by respondents plaintiffs is one which pertains to administration of a public trust or is it a suit to establish a private right to archakship or worship in the temple filed by persons claiming to behaving such a right.
       Held : To find out the nature of the suit, we have to go to the plaint in the suit as instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents in the Civil Court. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have a hereditary right of archakship with emoluments attached. This right of archakship started with the consecration of the deity. The families of the plaintiffs have been performing archakship right from the time of consecration of the deity. In fact the ancestors of the plaintiffs who were performing the functions as archaks also acted as managers and custodians of the temple and its properties. After the introduction of the Madras Endowment Act, the trustees were appointed. One of the members of the families of the plaintiffs used to be appointed as a trustee of the Board which consisted of five trustees at the initial stages. This continued till the year 1930 whereafter they stopped having a member of the plaintiffs’ families on the Board of trustees. The plaint contains various details to show and establish the right of the plaintiffs to archakship of the temple and the right to a share in the offerings of the deity with which we are not concerned at this stage. The fact relevant for our purpose is that vide a notice dated 21st September 1994 the plaintiffs’ services as archaks were terminated with which their right to perform puja in the temple and to have a share in the offerings also came to be terminated. The plaintiffs challenged the said notice as illegal and untenable. The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that they are hereditary archaks of the temple in question. The said right to act as archaks was in the nature of the property. A declaration was also sought to have share in the offerings to the deity at the temple. Further a declaration was sought that the order of termination dated 21st September, 1994 was illegal, void and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Injunction was sought to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs in performing their duties as archaks. (Para 6)
       We have seen the provision of Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act relied upon by the appellants-defendants. The said section does not cover a suit of the present type. Analogy has been drawn of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure while considering Section 50 of Bombay Public Trusts Act . Both provisions are in the nature of representative suits which pertain to public trusts and protection of public interest in the trusts. In the present case, there is no public interest involved. The only interest is that of the plaintiffs and their families. The right of archakship is claimed on the basis of inheritance. It is a hereditary personal right which they want to establish. The right is purely of a private nature. We are of the view that Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is not attracted at all in the facts of the present case. (Para 13)
       The plaintiffs claim that they are hereditary archaks of the temple since time immemorial and are entitled to exercise this right which cannot be taken away from them. No public interest is involved. Public is not concerned whether. A acts as an archak or B acts. Such a suit, therefore, cannot be covered by Section 50 of the Act. Law is settled on this aspect as per various judgments of this Court. (Para 14)

Judgment

Arun Kumar, J.—The question for consideration in the appeal is : Whether a suit to establish a right to be hereditary ‘archaks’ (Pujaris) in a temple and a share in the offerings made to the deity, is a suit in relation to personal/private right of the archaks or it is a suit in the nature of exercising a public right in a public trust? The question has arisen in the context of bar created by Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Regarding suits falling within the categories enumerated in Section 50 of the Act, either the Charity Commissioner has to file them or they have to be filed after obtaining consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner.

2. Briefly, the facts are: the plaintiffs (respondents herein) claiming to be hereditary archaks of the temple in suit from times immemorial and having a right to perform their duties (poojapal) as archaks in the temple, filed a civil suit for declaration to establish these rights. According to the plaintiffs, their family has been performing poojapali and exercising the rights incidental thereto since ancient times. The plaintiffs also claimed that they are entitled to emoluments in the form of share in the offerings made by the devotees. The ancestors of the plaintiffs have been exercising such rights since time immemorial when there was no trust for the temple and there were no trustees. The trust was created much later and the trustees are only managers of the properties of the trust. The trustees sought to remove the plaintiffs from archakship. According to plaintiffs the trustees had no right to remove hereditary archaks like the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further pleaded that often the offerings to the deity are symbol of sacrificial dedication of the produce of the land grown by the efforts of the devotees. “Padiakki” is the rice and coconut given by the devotees as dan (donation) to the officiating priest to take home. On this count, the priest has to accept the many negative karmas of the donor and to mitigate this, the priest has to perform penance. The plaintiffs had been exercising their rights to the knowledge of the defendants who are the trustees of the temple trust. According to the plaintiffs the archakship is not a job or vocation but a hereditary religious office, functions whereof they have to discharge ungrudgingly. A state of harmony and cooperation between the trustees and archaks continued till 1974-75. Thereafter, the trustees allegedly prepared a “Niyamavali” (Rule Book) meant for regulating the activities like Pooja and Viniyogas etc. The Niyamavali had no legal a or statutory backing. Under the Niyamavali the trustees also tried to interfere with the right of the plaintiffs regarding remuneration and donations received by them from the devotees. According to the plaintiffs the emoluments received by the archaks are not the income of the temple.

3. In order to get rid of the plaintiffs, the defendants issued a notice dated 21st September, 1994 terminating their services as archaks. The plaintiffs filed the instant suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are hereditary archaks of Shri Mahaganapathy (Vinayaka Dev) Temple of Idagunji in Honnavar Taluk and for consequential reliefs like declaring that the order of termination issued by defendants dated 21st September, 1994 is illegal, void and contrary to the principles of natural justice etc.

4. The defendants - appellants filed a written statement denying the rights of the plaintiffs to be hereditary archaks. It was further pleaded that the temple was under a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Further a plea was taken in the written statement that the suit filed against the trustees of the public trust and the reliefs prayed in the plaint directly relate to administration and management of the public trust and as such without making the temple trust a party , the suit was not maintainable in view of Sections 50, 51, 79 and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 956

Important pointA suit to establish a right to be hereditary ‘archaks’ (Pujaris) in a temple and a share in the offerings made to the deity is a suit in relation to personal/private right of archaks, not covered by Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.

Cases Referred (3)

Important point
A suit to establish a right to be hereditary ‘archaks’ (Pujaris) in a temple and a share in the offerings made to the deity is a suit in relation to personal/private right of archaks, not covered by Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.