- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. There is a temple known as Ram Mandir in Vishwanath Gali in District Varanasi and adjoining it is a temple of Annapurna Devi which is alleged to be a Math. It transpires that the said Ram Mandir was founded by Sri Purshottam Das and that the temple was managed by Purshottam Das and Shivnath Puri. After their death, the heirs of Purshottam Das started claiming that they were the exclusive Sibaits of the temple on the ground that the right of Sibaitship vested in Purshottam Das who was the sole founder of the temple and that Purshottam Das had nominated his son as his successor. Tribhuwan Puri claimed that the office of Sibaitship of Ram Mandir was vested in the Mahant of the Math Annapurna Devi and, by virtue of being the Mahant of the Math of Annapura Devi, he had the right of being the Sibait of Ram Mandir. This dispute led to the filing of a suit in the year 1959, seeking a relief for a declaration, that the plaintiff, being the son of the founder of the temple was entitled to be the chief Sibait of the temple with the final authority to control and manage the affairs of Ram Mandir. An injunction was also sought against the defendant from taking any offering from the temple or from interfering with the management of the temple.
(2.) THE trial Court, decreed the suit and held that Ram Mandir was not a public temple but was a private temple and that the plaintiff succeeded as the Sibait of the Ram Mandir, being an heir of the founder. In appeal, the High Court held that the Ram Mandir was a public temple and, on that basis, non suited the plaintiff. THE Supreme Court also held that the Ram Mandir was a public temple and that there was no deed conferring a right upon any person to manage the temple exclusively. Since there was a rival claim for the right of management the Supreme Court directed the District Judge to frame a scheme for the proper management of the temple. THE Supreme Court held - "we, therefore, direct the District Judge to frame a scheme for proper management of the temple. In that scheme, plaintiff 1 since deceased by his L. R. And the defendant be given equal rights in the management. If they are not able to co-operate each other, they may be given such exclusive rights in the alternative periods of six months or one year. THE scheme also may provide the right to nominate the successor of plaintiff 1 and the defendant for management of the temple. We, however make it clear that the directions given by the trial Court against the defendant in regard to the missing articles of the temple is kept undisturbed and the defendant shall be asked to restore all the articles to the temple. THE Court will also take care to see that the temple premises or any other building appertaining thereto is not utilised for the private use of the parties or to their relations. THEse are only some of the suggestions. THE District Judge will take into consideration other aspects also while framing a proper scheme. THE scheme shall be framed within six months from the date of receipt of this order. " Based on the aforesaid direction, the District Judge framed a scheme. Paragraph-3 of the scheme contemplated that the temple would be managed by the first party for a period of one year and thereafter, the charge would be handed over to the second party and, in this way, the temple would be managed by both the parties, turn by turn. Paragraph-5 of the scheme contemplated that the parties would be called the managers and that they would have a right to nominate their successors. Paragraph- 31 of the scheme contemplated that in case there was a dispute between the parties the matter would be decided by the District Judge. It transpires that the scheme became effective in the year 1995 and, since then, the management of the temple was being managed by the petitioners for one year and in the subsequent year, by Sri Tribhuwan Puri. The record suggests that whenever the turn of the petitioners came to hand over the charge to Tribhuwan Puri, they used to raise a dispute. In the year 1995, the petitioners raised a dispute that Tribhuwan Puri was the Chela of Mahant Kapilmuni and was not the Chela of Vishwanath Puri and therefore, had no right to participate in the management of the temple. Similar dispute was again raised in the year 2003 by the petitioners which came up to the High Court and eventually, the High Court by a judgment dated 15-9-2003, in Civil Revision No. 323 of 2003, held that Tribhuwan Puri had a right to manage the Ram Mandir and that the petitioners had no right to restrain Tribhuwan Puri from exercising the Sibaiti right in his own turn.
(3.) IT transpires that the charge of the temple was required to be handed over by Tribhuwan Puri to the petitioners w. e. f. 25-9- 2004, but before the charge of the temple could be handed over, Tribhuwan Puri had a stroke on 9-9-2004 and went into a coma and eventually, died on 2-10-2004. The petitioners were given charge to manage the temple and when their turn came to hand over the charge in September, 2005, an application for substitution was filed by the defendants Rameshwari Puri and Shanker Puri claiming themselves to be the heirs and representatives of Tribhuwan Puri and the right to manage the Ram Mandir on the ground that they had been elected as the Mahant and Up Mahant of the Math Annapurna Devi and by virtue of being the Mahant of Annapurna Devi, they had the right to manage the Ram Mandir. The defendants, in their application, also stated that there were other cases pending against Tribhuwan Puri in which, the defendants were impleaded as the heirs of Tribhuwanpuri. In paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the application, the defendants contended that after the death of Tribhuwan Puri, the office of Mahant of the Math Annapurna Devi remained vacant for fifteen days and that Sadhu and Sanyasis assembled together and gave the charge of the Mahant of the Math Annapurna Devi to Goswami Subhash Puri. IT was further stated that Subhash Puri declined to take the responsibility and subsequently, he executed a registered deed on 2-7-2004 appointing the defendants as the Mahant and Up Mahant of Annapurna Devi. The District Judge, by an order dated 26-9-2005 held that the defendants Rameshwari Puri and Shanker Puri are the legal representatives of Tribhuwan Puri and had a right to manage the Ram Mandir. The District Judge further found that even though Tribhuwan Puri did not execute any deed of nomination yet, by the conduct of Tribhuwan Puri, the defendants were nominated as his successors. The District Judge found that since the defendants were substituted as the legal heirs and the representatives of Tribhuwan Puri in other cases, consequently, the defendants were liable to be substituted as the legal heirs of Tribhuwan Puri in the present dispute and that they had a right to manage the affairs of the temple as per the scheme. The District Judge by the impugned order, further directed the petitioners to hand over the charge of the management of the temple to the defendants.;