NARAYANI Vs. DURGALAL
LAWS(RAJ)-1967-4-8
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on April 28,1967

NARAYANI Appellant
VERSUS
DURGALAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against the appellate judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur City No. 2, dated November 21, 1961, dismissing her suit with costs.
(2.) THE controversy, which relates to the right of "seva puja" and management of the temple of Shri Murli Manoharji in Jaipur, has continued for a little over four decades, but it will be sufficient to make a mention of those facts which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal. It is not in dispute that the temple in question was built by Mansaram, the common ancestor of the parties, and in that temple Mansaram installed the idol of Thakurji. He had four sons -Seyaram, motiram, Gulabchand and Gumaniram. It is admitted that Gulabchand died without any issue. Plaintiff Smt. Narayani is the daughter of Giyarisilal, a representative of motiram's branch. Giyarisilal died in Section 1962 and his widow Smt. Chai died in section 1978. The contesting defendant Durgalal is the son of Narayan, who represented Sevarains branch of the family, Smt. Nashi also represented motiram's branch, and as she died during the pendency of this second appeal, she is represented by her daughters Smt. Chand and Smt. Suraj. Smt. Teejan was a representative of the branch of Gumaniram, but as she died her name was struck off without impleading any one as her legal representative. Both Smt. Nathi and smt. Teejan were arrayed as defendants.
(3.) IT is not disputed that after the death of her mother Smt. Ghai, there was litigation between plaintiff Smt. Narayani and the contesting defendant Durgalal as smt. Narayani's right to have her turn or "osra" for the management and "seva puja" of the deity was denied on the ground that she could not perform any such duty because of her sex. So also it is admitted that the dispute ultimately went to the Chief Court of the former Jaipur State and that Court gave its judgment Ex. 10 on January 19, 1926, by which it was decided that the present plaintiff Smt. Narayani could not be denied her right of "osra" because of her sex. It appears, however, that in spite of that judgment of the highest Court of the land. Smt. Narayani was not allowed to take her turn. She made repeated attempts to secure her "osra" with the help of the State Government, and after several failures and adverse orders, the State Govt. ultimately made order Ex. 15 on July 8, 1957, directing the Devasthan department to give Smt. Narayani her turn by dividing the property, but that order has remained unenforced.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.