1949 (1) TMI 10 - HC - Indian Laws

Appellate court upholds trial decision on temple trust suit under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure

Laxmanrao Umajirao Versus Govindrao Madhorao and Ors.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision in a case involving the validity of the suit under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, nature of ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the institution of the suit under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.2. Nature of the trust (public or private) concerning the temple of Shri Ramchandraswami.3. Allegations of mismanagement and malversation by the Defendant.4. Removal of the Defendant from trusteeship and appointment of a new trustee.5. Framing of a scheme for the management of the trust property.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the institution of the suit under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:The suit was filed by the Plaintiffs with the consent of the Deputy Commissioner, Nagpur, who had obtained prior sanction from the Provincial Government. The validity of the sanction was challenged but not pressed in the appeal. The court found that the consent was duly passed in accordance with the provisions of the law, and hence, the suit was properly instituted.2. Nature of the trust (public or private) concerning the temple of Shri Ramchandraswami:The Plaintiffs claimed that the temple was a public religious trust, while the Defendant contended it was a private temple intended for the use of Chandanbai and the Bhonsla household. The court examined historical documents, including the wahiwatpatra (deed of management), and found no express declaration that the dedication was meant to be private. It inferred that the temple was intended for public use, supported by the fact that the British Government had granted remission of land revenue, indicating a public purpose. The court concluded that the endowed property was burdened with obligations in the nature of a trust for public purposes of a religious and charitable nature.3. Allegations of mismanagement and malversation by the Defendant:The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant had stopped essential religious activities, neglected the temple's upkeep, and misappropriated funds from the sale of garden plots. The Defendant denied these allegations, asserting that the temple was well-maintained and the sale of plots was necessary to pay land revenue. The trial court found that the Defendant's management had deteriorated, with some property lost and minimal income spent on the temple. The appellate court upheld these findings, confirming that the Defendant was guilty of mismanagement and malversation.4. Removal of the Defendant from trusteeship and appointment of a new trustee:Based on the findings of mismanagement, the trial court passed a preliminary decree on 15th April 1942, declaring the Defendant incompetent and ordering his removal. The court appointed a new Board of Trustees and framed a scheme for the management of the temple. The appellate court upheld the decision to remove the Defendant, emphasizing the need for a new trustee to ensure the proper management of the endowed property.5. Framing of a scheme for the management of the trust property:The trial court framed a detailed scheme for the puja and management of the Shri Ramchandraswami deosthan, including the appointment of five trustees. A final decree was passed on 6th October 1942, embodying the terms of the scheme. The appellate court noted that no appeal had been filed against the final decree and found no issues with the personnel of the Board of Trustees or the management scheme.Conclusion:The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was validly instituted, the temple was a public religious trust, the Defendant was guilty of mismanagement, and his removal was justified. The court affirmed the trial court's decision to appoint a new trustee and frame a management scheme, ensuring the proper administration of the trust property. The appeal was dismissed with costs.