# TIIAKUR JANKI BALLABIUI MAHARAJ & ANR v. THAKUR JANKI BALLABIUI MAHARAJ & ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 634
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-07-23
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, Acting C.J. A!'Id G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tiiakur-janki-ballabiui-maharaj-anr-v-thakur-janki-ballabiui-maharaj-anr-4672
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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 propet1ies. 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.

## Text

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 propet1ies. 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 properties and for an order calling uPon the defendant, Ramchand, to
account for the realisations of the estate of the deity.
The case of the plaintiffs was that the Ruler of the State of
Bharatpur built the temple at Brindaban and installed the idol of
Thakur Janki Ballabhjl Maharaj and dedicated the temple to the
deity; that the shebait or the deity who was a paid employee of the
State was appointed by the Ruler of the State of Bharatpur; that
one Chhotelal was app0inted a priest to perform the worship in
the temple under a written agreement dated April 8, 1936; that
after the death of CbJiotelal on May 13, 1912 Ramchand was
appointed the priest of the temple on condition that he shall
execute the usual agreement in favour of the State; that Ramchand entered upon the duties as pujari but failed to execute the
agreement, and in course of time raised various constructions of
his own on the premises in dispute and converted them into private
residential buildings, and illegally used the temple as a lodging
house for pilgrims "to the utter detriment, loss and desecration of
the deity" and thereby acquired "illegal benefit to himself out of
the temple properties"; and that Ramchand was not performing
the seva puja of the deity.
The suit was resisted by Ramchand. He denied that the temple
was built at the expen$e of the Ruler of the State of Bharatpur or
that he-Ramchand was appointed to be a priest of the temple by
the Ruler of Bharatpur. He contended that one Ram Narain
636
SUPREME COUllT REPORTS
[1970] 1 S.C.R.
Kedar Nath had taken a piece of land at Bindraban on rent from
A
the temple of Govindji and after constructing a temple thereon
and installing the Thakurji had given it as an offering to Sitaram,
ancestor of Ramchand, and had appointed Sitaram as
the
Manager of the temple; that the temple had since then remained
in the management of the descendants of Sitaram, and that he
(Ramchand) was in possession of the temple and its properties
B
as "Manager and proprietor''.
The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the Ruler of
Bharatpur was never the owner of the temple or of the articles
mentioned in Schs. A and B of the plaint, that the Ruler was also
not the founder of the temple nor its shebait; and that the Ruler
had never appointed any pujari of this temple and was not authoC
rised to appoint or dismiss such a pujari.
In appeal against the decree passed by the Court of First
instance it was urged before the High Court of Allahabad that the
trial court erred in dismissing the suit merely on the finding that
.ihe Ruler of the State of 13haratpur "had no concern with
the
D
construction of the temple or with the installation of the idol in the
temple", and that in the suit filed by the deity, having regard to
the acts of mismanagement and misappropriation committed by
the defendant Ramchand, a decree should have been made in
favour of the deity. Counsel for Ramchand contended that the
suit being of the nature of a suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure could not be instituted without obtaining the sanction
E
in writing of the Advocate-General and that in
any event the
second plaintiff, the State of Bharatpur, could not tile the suit,
since it was not a shebait or the settlor of the temple.
It was common ground before the High Court that the property of the temple was not property of a pubhc trust of a religious
F
or charitable nature. From the averments made in the plaint it is
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 suit. The High Court therefore rightly rejected
the contention that the suit was not maintainable without the
G
sanction of the Advocate-General.
The High Court held that it was open, even to a worshipper,
if he possesses sufficient qualifying interest, to start a suit to protect the property of the deity. Observing that the defendant Ramchand had raised residential buildings of his own in the temple
H
premises and that he was lodging pilgrims in a part of those buildinj!s and was asserting a proprietary title to them and was on that
account guilty of conduct detrimental to the interest of the deity
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAM GRAND V. JAND IALLABHJI (Shah, Ag. C.J.)
637
and had rendered himself liable to be ejected from the temple and
its properties, and that he was unfit to act as pujari, the High
Court reversed the decree passed by .the trial court and decreed the
plaintiffs' suit for possession of the temple and its properties and
restrained the defendant Ramchand by an injunction from inter-,
fering with the management of the temple and. performance of
worship of the deity. With special leave, Ramchand has appealed
to this Court.
Ramchand has committed several acts of mismanagement and
misappropriation of the temple and its properties. He has set up
a personal title. to the temple properties and has converted the
properties to his own use. Ramchand is therefore not fit to remain
in possession as pujari or as manager of the temple. The suit is
filed by the deity acting through the Manager. Granting that it
js not proved that the Ruler of Bharatpur estalJ!ished the temple
and installed the deity, there is abundant evidence that the State
of Bharatpur had made from time to time large donations for the
maintenance of the temple. The Ruler of Bharatpur had therefore clearly a substantial interest to maintain the suit on behilit of
the deity to protect tbe property. Tb.ere is no merit in the appeal
and therefore it must fail.
It is, however, neqessary to make an effective decree in this
appeal. It may be noticed that even though the suit has been filed
and prosecuted on behalf of the State of Bharatpur and later by
the State of Rajasthan' through its District Magistrate, the temple
is situate within the State of U.P. and it would be difficult for the
District Magistrate or any other authority acting on behalf of the
State of Rajasthan to look after the administration of the temple
and to protect its properties from misappropriation. This is undoubtedly a private trust but the civil courts have jurisdiction to
frame a scheme for the management of the temple which is not a
public trust. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick(') directed that a scheme be framed for the regulation of the worship of
the idol even though there was no public trust. In Asha Bibi and
Others v. Nabissa Sahib and Others(') the Madra.• High Court
held that a suit for removing the trustees of a private trust and for
framing a scheme was maintainable. A similar view was also
taken by' the Calcutta, High Court in Shri Mahadeo Jew and
Another v. Ba/krishna Vyas & Another(8 ).
·
I.
•
The civil court has therefore jurisdiction to frame a scheme
!or ma~agement of the t~mple. an~ its propertie.s. The present is,
m, our 1udgment, a case m which m exercise of the powers under
Order 41 rule 3 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure we should direct
(I) 52 I.A. 245.
(2) A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 583.
(3) A.I.R. 1952 Cal. 763.
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] l S.C.R.
that the court o[ first instance to frame a scheme of management
of the temple collections and the income and disbursement of expenses, application of the surplus if any and for that purpose to
appoint a manager of the property of the deity and its properties,
with authority to take possession of the temple and the properties
from the defendant Ramchand and to administer the property
and its income under the directions of the coun. We direct accordingly.
The Court will also take an accounL of his dealings with
the property of the deity from Ramchand and determine his
liability and recover the amount found due from him on taking
accounts. The Court will pass appropriate orders with regard to
the constructions made by Ramchand and will prevent the property being used for the private benefit of Ramchand or any other
person.
The scheme tobc framed will be consistent with the
law relating to private religious endowments, il any, in force in
the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Subject to this modification, the appeal
is dismissed with
costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c