SANDHYA PANT versus DEEPAK RUWALI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 407 · Decided: 11-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
407
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 407
407
SANDHYA PANT
v.
DEEPAK RUWALI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5238 of 2022)
AUGUST 11, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Trust and charities: Shebait rights of the temple – Appellant
and respondent nos 7 to 10-descendant/founder of the Chitai Golu
Devta, discharging the duties of the shebait of the temple – Writ
Petition by respondent no 1 seeking direction to the respondent
authorities to constitute a registered society or trust for management
of the temple – Disposed of, without hearing the appellant and
without deciding the appellant’s application for impleadment –
Interference with – Held: Not called for – Chitai Golu Devta Temple
is administered by the appellant and the respondents – It is not
clear as to which heirs of the family are entitled to shebaitship rights
in respect of the Chitai Golu Devta Temple and there appears to be
disputes in this regard amongst family members – Furthermore, no
specific statute governing the Chitai Golu Devta Temple – As regards
the issue of impleadment, the Courts attention was not drawn to the
pending impleadment application of the appellant – Appellant could
have appeared and made submissions if she had so chosen, even
without being added as party – In any case, other members of the
family including the respondent Nos.7 to 10, who, according to the
appellant were in the Mandir Samiti of which the appellant claims
to be Vice President were duly given an opportunity of hearing –
Thus, the High Court did not commit any error in passing the
impugned order – Impleadment.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is a difference in the traditional mode
and manner of management of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple at
Thiruvananthapuram in respect of which the right of management
is vested with the Ruler of Travancore and the Chitai Golu Devta
Temple administered by the Appellant and the Respondents. Be
that as it may, even in the case of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple,
the Court vested the Temple Committee constituted in terms of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
408
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
its order, with all the powers of management of the Ruler of
Travancore. [Para 42][424-A-B]
1.2 In the instant case, it is not exactly clear as to which
heirs of the Pant family are entitled to shebaitship rights in respect
of the Chitai Golu Devta Temple and there appears to be disputes
in this regard amongst members of the Pant family. there is no
specific statute governing the Chitai Golu Devta Temple. [Para
43, 45][424-C; 425-H]
1.3 The High Court has not committed any error in passing
the impugned order. The only question is, whether the order
should have been passed in the absence of the Appellant, without
deciding the Appellant’s application for impleadment. On a perusal
of the judgment and order, it does not appear that anyone drew
the attention of the Court to pending impleadment application of
the Appellant. The Appellant could have appeared and made
submissions if she had so chosen, even without being added as
party. In any case, other members of the Pant family including
the Respondent Nos.7 to 10, who, according to the Appellant
were in the Mandir Samiti of which the Appellant claims to be
Vice President were duly given an opportunity of hearing. The
judgment and order impugned is not interfered with. [Para
46][426-A-C]
Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas
Kalidas and Ors. (1969) 2 SCC 853 : [1970] 2 SCR
275; Jagdish Prasad v. Mahant Tribhuwan Puri (1987)
Supp SCC 482 : 1987 (4) JT 509; Sri Marthanda Varma
Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2021) 1 SCC 225 : [2020]
9 SCR 974; Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing
Committee and Another v. C. K. Rajan and Others
(2003) 7 SCC 546 : [2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 619 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[1970] 2 SCR 275
referred to.
Para 34
[2020] 9 SCR 974
referred to.
Para 40
[2003] 2 Suppl. SCR 619
referred to.
Para 44
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
409
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5238
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2020 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WP (PIL) No. 131 of 2018.
With
Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2022
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., V. K. Shukla, Sugam Mishra, Jayanta
Bhattacharyya, Ms. Saket Gautam, Miss Beena, Satish Kumar, Advs.
for the Appellant.
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ashutosh Sharma,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals are against a final judgment and o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.