LexRAJE ANANDRAO versus SHAMRAO AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1961 930 SUPRE'>fE COURT REPORTS [1961] RAJE ANANDRAO v. SHAMRAO AND OTHERS. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and "!(. N. W ANCHOO, JJ.) Rtligious Endowmeni-Suit under s. 92, C.P.C.-Scheme pro- viding for modification in future-Modifications, if can be made by application or separate suit-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of I908). s. 92. The appellant was the trustee of a temple, which was an endowment for the public by his ancestors, and the respondents were its Pujaris with hereditary rights. Dissatisfaction with the management of the temple having arisen a suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in which it was finallv decided that the office of the Pujaris was hereditary and they were subject to the control of the appellant. Some of the Pujaris were not parties to the suit but they were bound by the scheme framed therein as members of the worshipping public. Subsequently again trouble arose and on the report of a commissioner appointed to investigate the working of the temple, the District Judge passed an order by which he revised the scheme which was then in force. The Pujaris went to the High Court .in revision which was allowed. On appeal by special leave the main question aris- ing for decision was how far it was open to the Court to amend a scheme once framed under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure where a power to amend the scheme is reserved in the Scheme itself. Held, that in a suit under s. 92 for the settlement of a scheme it was open to provide in the scheme for modifying it whenever necessary by inserting a clause to the effect. A suit for the settlement of a scheme is analogous to an administration suit and so long as the modification in the scheme is for the purpose of administration, such modification can be made by an application under the relevant clause of the scheme without the necessity of a separate suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions of which are not violated by such a procedure. Chandraprasad Ramprasad v. ]inabharthi Narayanabharthi (1931) I.LR. 55 Born. 414, Sri Swami Rangacharya v. Gangaram (1936) I.L.R. 58 All. 538, Umeshananda Dutta ]ha v. Sir Rava- neswar Prasad Singh (1912) r7 C.W.N. 84r, Manadananda ]ha v. Tarakananda ]ha Panda A.LR. 1924 Cal. 330, Srijib Nyayatirtha v. Sreemant Dandy Swami J agannath Ashram A.LR. 1941 Cal. 618, Mahomed Waheb Hussain v. Syed Abbas Hussain A.LR. 1923 Pat. 420 and Gangaram Go1•i11d Pashankar v. Sardar K. R. Vinchurkar I.LR. (1947] Born. 466, approved. Prayaga Doss Jee Varu v. Tirumala Anandam Pillai Purisa Sriranga Charylu Vam (r907) L.R. 34 I.A. 78 anrt Sevak .. 3 ~.C.R. SUPRE~IE COlJltT REPOHTS 931 Kirpashanker Daje v. Gopal Rao Manohar Tambekar (1913) 24 M.L.J. 199, referred to. Veeraraghavachariar v. The Advocate-General of Madras [19281 I.L.R. 51 Mad. 31, disapproved. A suit under s. 92 is a representative suit and binds not only the parties to the suit but all those who are interested in the trust. The mere fact that the Pujaris were not parties to the suit would not take away the jurisdiction of the District Judge to modify the scheme, if the modification was with respect to the administration of the trust and if it did not affect the private rights of the Pujaris. Crvm APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 370 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 25, 1955, of the former Nagpur High Court, in Civil Revision No. 333 of 1954. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Shankar Anand and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant. W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents. 1961. February 23. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Raje Anandrao v. Shamrao WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave Wanchoo J. against the judgment of the Nagpur High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these : There is an ancient temple of Balaji at Deolgaon Raja in the Buldana District.. Before 1866 the management of the temple was in the hands of a family bearing the name of 1 ad. A suit was filed in 1866 with respect to this temple by Raje Mansingh Rao under the guardian- ship of his mother for a declaration that the temple was his property. The defendants in that suit were certain pujaris. The suit was decreed by the first court but on appeal it was held that the temple was not the private property of the Raja but was an endow- ment for the public founded by the ancestors of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.