DEVI PRASAD Vs. MAHANT GOSWAMI TRIBHUWANPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Varanasi, the City of temples and maths there is in Vishwanath Gali a Ram Mandir, which is undisputedly a temple and adjoining it a temple of Annapurna Devi, which according to Tribhuwanpuri, the respondent in these revisions, is a math. Disputes about management of Ram Mandir arose about half a century ago giving birth to a suit in the year 1958 by Jagdish Prasad the predecessor of the applicants in these revisions against Vishwanath Puri the predecessor of Tribhuwanpuri the respondent herein. The suit travelled its way upto the Supreme Court. Both, the High Court in the first appeal and the Supreme Court in the appeal against the High Court's judgment settled the dispute about the character of Ram Mandir and held that it is a public temple. Neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court, however, decided the question even then agitated by the defendant that the shebaitship of the Ram Mandir vested in the mahant of math Annapurna Devi. The Supreme Court rather chose to dispose of the litigation by a direction to the District Judge to frame a scheme giving equal rights in the management to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and the defendant jointly and in case they were unable to co-operate each other, by exclusive management rights for specified periods, turn by turn. The judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered on 23.11.1987.

(2.) The District Judge gave effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court and framed a scheme in which one of the terms was that the applicants in these revisions and the respondent would exercise shebaiti rights for a period of one year each in rotation. The scheme itself appears to have been framed not without contest. Although originally prepared in the year 1988 it was confirmed by the trial court after objections and was finally affirmed with minor changes by the High Court in revision on 30.8.1996.

(3.) It appears that after the scheme was framed the parties exercised their rights accordingly, turn by turn and it seemed that they had buried the hatchet. But the respite was short lived. Hardly had the new year 2001 opened its account that on 6.1.2001 the applicants launched a fresh attack. An application was filed by them raising several issues with which we are here not concerned but one of them has become the central point of dispute in these revisions and, therefore, requires focus. It was alleged that the respondent had been substituted in the appeal before the High Court as a chela of Vishwanath Puri the previous shebait and was also so arrayed in the appeal before the Supreme Court and the capacity in which he was given the right under the scheme to manage the debutter was as a chela of Vishwanath Puri but in the revision, which arose out of the order of District Judge framing the scheme, he represented himself to be the chela of Kapil Muni and in that position as the chela of Kapil Muni, he was not entitled to hold the office of shebait of the Ram Mandir. An application raising the same issue was then filed by applicants on 16.8.2001. The District Judge by his order dated 27.8.2001 turned down the contentions of the applicants raised before him that the respondent was not entitled for reasons in their application. I have Just referred to, to take charge of his turn, which was then to commence from 1.9.2001. This order has given rise to Revision No. 588 of 2001. It appears that the turn of the respondent in question in this revision had in the meanwhile run out and the applicants had started to exercise the management rights in their turn, which too has now come to an end on 31,8.2003. A fresh objection dated 22.8.2003 was, therefore, made by the applicants disputing the claim of the respondent to take charge of his fresh turn from 1.9.2003 setting out the same case as was set out in the earlier application. The District Judge by order dated 28.8,2003, has rejected the contention of the applicants once again. This order is under challenge in the other civil revision.