R.A.JAHAGIRDAR, J. - (1.)This appeal under letters patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 1979 passed by Rege, J., in First Appeal No. 805 of 1974. This litigation has a somewhat protracted history which, however, will not be narrated by us in any great details. However, some salient features ought to be mentioned here. The dispute relates to what has been described as rights of services in respect of Dnyaneshwar Sampradaya attached to the Trust at Alandi in Pune District. As it is well known, Maharashtra produced a well known saint called Dnyaneshwar who took Samadhi at Alandi more than seven hundred years ago and the followers of his cult have erected a place of worship at Alandi. From this place every year a procession is taken to Pandharpur in the month of Ashad. The place of worship at Alandi has been declared as a Public Trust and is governed by a scheme originally prepared in 1852 by the then Collector of Pune. In 1934 a suit, being Civil Suit No. 7 of 1934, was filed in the District Court at Pune under section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the preparation of the scheme in respect of the said Trust. The District Court amended the scheme as it was framed in the year 1852 and passed a decree giving an amended scheme. This decree of the District Court was challenged by the Committee in charge of the Trust in First Appeal No. 92 of 1938 and by a judgment dated 16th November, 1939 this Court further modified the scheme as decreed by the District Court. It is not disputed that this scheme which was framed by the High Court by modifying the scheme of the District Court is still in force.
(2.)At this stage it may be mentioned that during the course of the detailed arguments, no authenticated copy of the scheme as modified by the High Court was produced before us nor does it form part of the record of this case as it has travelled from the learned District Judge to a Single Judge of this Court and thereafter before us. However, in the record of First Appeal No. 92 of 1938 we find an uncertified copy of the said scheme. That was apparently annexed to a civil application which had been subsequently filed in this Court for amendment of the scheme under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. We will later in this judgment refer to this civil application made for amending the decree under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. We are proceeding on the basis that the copy of the scheme which is found in the record of First Appeal No. 92 of 1938 is the correct copy of the scheme as framed by the High Court. We have heard the arguments on the basis that this is the correct scheme and the learned Advocates have sought to interpret the various clauses of this scheme during the course of their arguments. Later in this judgment we will be summarising the provisions of this scheme.
(3.)At this stage we must refer to the civil applications which were made by some persons for amending the scheme as settled by this Court. These applications were made under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. They were three in number and were ultimately disposed of by a judgment of this Court in (Gangaram Govind v. Vinchurkar) XLIX Bom.L.R. 757. This Court held that an application under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code may be filed for amending the scheme for the purpose mentioned in section 151, namely for doing justice and the prevention of abuse of the process of the Court. In the aforesaid judgment this Court however noted that the point raised in the civil applications should not be decided by themselves because it depended largely upon evidence. Accordingly this Court sent the papers to the learned District Judge directing him to issue notice to the parties to frame necessary issues and come to a conclusion on the issues and report the conclusion to this Court. This Court also did not impose any time limit for the proceedings to be held by the District Judge pursuant to the said directions. It has not been pointed out to us whether pursuant to this any modification of the scheme was made.