THAKUR JANKI BALLABHJI MAHARAJ & ANR. versus THAKUR JANKI BALLABHJI MAHARAJ & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 23-07-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

TIIAKUR JANKI BALLABIUI MAHARAJ & ANR. 
v. 
THAKUR JANKI BALLABIUI MAHARAJ & ANR. 
July 23, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH, ACTING C.J. A!'ID G. K. MITTER, J.] 
C.:ode of Civil Procedure, s. 92 and 0. 41 R. 33-Temple-Private 
Trust-Suit by deity against person in 1nanc:gement-No previous sanction 
11ru/er s. 92 necessary for bringing suit in respect of n1ismanage1nent and 
misappropriation of te1nple property-Under 0. 41 r. 33 court has power 
to f1a1ne sche1ne for n1anagement of tenzple even though it was not public 
trust. 
The deity Thakur Janki Ballabhii Maharaj installt•d in a temple at 
Brindaban brought in 
lh~ court of Civil Judge f\·fathura a suit through 
its manager-an authorised agent of the cr!itwhilc Bharatpur Stare-for 
a decree for possession of the temple and its properties as well as for 
accounts to he rendered by R the puiari of the temple. 
It was alleged 
in the plaint that the temple had been built by the Ruler of BharJtpur 
\\'ho had dedicated it to the deity. 
It was further alleged that R. the 
defendant \\'ho had succeeded the priest originally appointed by the Ruler 
of Bharatpur had mismanaged and mis.1ppropriatcd the temple properties 
and had failed to perform the se\'a puia of the deity. 
R in his written 
statement denied these allegations and contested the suit. After 1he merger 
of Bharatpur State in the State of Rajac;than the su·1t was prosecuted by 
the District \1agistrate of Bharatpur. 
The trial court dismissed the suit 
but the High Court decreed it Hy special leave the defendant came to 
this Court. 
HELD: (i) The High Co..0-t rightly rejected 
t~c defendant's pica 
based on s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
It \\'as common ground 
before the High Court that the property of the temple was not property 
of a public trust of a religious or charitable nature. 
From the averments 
in the plaint it was clear that the suit was filed by the deity against the 
person in management and it was not a suit filed by the relators. Section 
92 of the Code of Civil Procedure had no application to the suit and the 
sanction of the Advocate General was not a condition of the initiation 
of the ;uit. [636 F-G] 
(ii) The evidence established that the defendant had committed several 
acts of mismanagement and misappropriation of the temple and its pro-
pet1ies. Re had set up a personal title to the temple properties and had 
converted the oropertics to his own use. 
He was thclrefore unfit to remain 
the p11jari of the temple. [637 B-C] 
Granting that it was not proved that the Ruler or Bharatpur established 
the temple and installed the deity, there was abundant evidence that the 
State of Bharatpur had made from time to time large donations for the 
maintenance of the temple. The Ruler of Bh:H'atpur had therefore clearly 
a suhstantial interest to maintain the suit on behalf of the deity to protect 
the pronertv. 
There was no merit in the defendant's appeal .and it must 
fail. !637 C-Dl 
(iii) Since it would he difficult for the District Ma~istrate of Bharatpur 
or any other authoritv actiniz on behalf of the State of Raiasthan to look 
after 1hc administration of the temple which v.•as situate in the State of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAM CH,\ND V. JANK! BALLABHJI (Shah, Ag. C.J.) 
635 
U.P. it ~as an appropriate case for the exercise of the Court's powers 
under 0. 41 R. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
The Civil Courts 
have jurisdiction to frame a scheme for the management of a temple even 
though it is not a public trust. [637 H-638 BJ 
Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick 52 I.A. 245, 
Asha Bibi & Ors. v. NabisSa Sahib & Ors. 
A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 583 and 
Shri Mahadeo Jew & Anr. v. Balkrishna Vy<'s & Anr. A.I.R. 1952 Cal. 
763, relied on. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 574 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 22, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal 
No. 39 of 1952. 
J. P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellants. 
K. B. Mehta, for respQ!ldent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, Ag. C.J. 
Suit No. 41 of 194 7 was filed in the Court 
of the Civil Judge, Mathura by the deity Thakur J anki Ballabhji 
Maharaj, acting through its manager-L. Tulsiram, 
authorised 
agent of the Bharatpur 'State, for a decree for possession of the 
temple of the deity at Brindaban in U.P. and of the temple pro-
perties and for an order calling uPon the defendant, Ramchand, to 
account for the r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.