VINAYAKA DEV IDAGUNJI AND ORS. versus SHIVARAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 28-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. ~ 
VINA Y AKA DEV IDAGUNJI AND ORS. 
A. 
v. 
SHIVARAM AND ORS. 
JULY 28, 2005 
B 
[B.P. SINGH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950--Sections 50 and 51--Archaks of 
temple-Termination of their services by Trustees of temple-Suit for 
declaration that right to Archakship was hereditary, that archaks were C 
entitled to share in offerings of devotees, and that termination of their 
services was illegal-Maintainability of-Held: Suit was for enforcement of 
personal/private right and no public interest was involved-It was not 
covered by Section 50 and was maintainable without consent of the Charity 
Commissioner-Sections 9 and 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
D 
Respondents claimed themselves to be hereditary archaks of the temple 
in suit form times immemorial. A trust was created later with respect to the 
temple. Trustees-appellants issued a notice terminating services of 
respondents as archaks. The respondents filed a suit for declaration that they 
were hereditary archaks of the temple, that th~y were entitled to emoluments E 
in the form of share in the offerings made by devotees, and that the termination 
of their services was illegal, void and contrary to the principles of natural 
justice. 
The defendent-appellants filed a written statement denying the rights 
of the plaintiffs to be hereditary archaks. They pleaded that the temple was F 
under a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 •. 
The reliefs prayed in the plaint directly related to administration and 
management of the public trust, and without making the temple trust a party, 
the suit was not maintainable in view of Sections 50, 51, 79 and 80 of the 
above Act read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They further 
pleaded that permission of the Charity Commissioner as required under G 
Sections 50 and 51 was not taken. 
Trial Court rejected the application of defendants that issues relating 
to maintainability of the suit be tried as preliminary issues. High Court 
~s 
H 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
. A declined to interfere with order of trial court and further directed that in view 
of long pendency of the suit, it should be disposed of on merits within a period 
of six months. Hence the present appeal by defendants. 
Respondents contended that the reliefs claimed in the suit did not fall 
in any of the clauses of Section 50 of the Act. There was no allegation of 
B breach of trust; neither any declaration was sought that some property 
belonged to a public trust nor any direction sought for administration of the 
public trust. The right of archakship was an individual and personal right 
enforceable under ordinary law. 
c 
·n 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD 1. Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act does not cover a 
suit of the present type. Analogy has been drawn of Section 92 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure. Both provisions are in the nature of representative suits 
which pertain to public trusts and protection of public interest in the trusts. / 
(864-BJ 
Raje Anand Rao v. Sham Rao and Ors., [1961) 3 SCR 930, relied on. 
1.2. 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 
E 50 of the Act. Law is settled on this aspect. (864-F] 
Sahebgouda (Deceased) v. Ogeppa and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 151, relied 
on. 
2. The only interest is that of the plaintiffs ~nd their families. The right 
F of archakship is claimed on the basis of inheritance. It is a hereditary personal 
right which they want to establish. This is purely of a private nature. [864-C) 
Raje Anand Rao v. Sham Rao and Ors., [1961) 3 SCR 930, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5641 of2004. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2004 of the Kamataka High 
Court C.R.P. No. 4708 of2001. 
S.S. Javali, R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash, Ms. Savitri Pandey and P.P. _ 
Singh with him for the Appellants. 
H 
Devadatt Kamat, Arijit Prasad and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Respondents. 
VINA YAKA DEV IDAGUNJI v. SHIVARAM [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 
857 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
ARUN KUMAR, J. The question for consideration in this 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 exercisi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.