Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE petitioner Goswami Shri Ballabh Lalji Maharaj has made this petition on the allegation that there is a temple of the Deity of Shri Chhota Mathureshji at Kotah City, which had been founded and established by his ancestor Swami Shri Ballabhacharya, and has descended to him by succession. It was alleged that the Commissioner of Kotah Division directed the Assistant Officer, Court of Wards, on or about the 23rd June, 1953 to take possession of the temple with all its movable and immovable properties, and passed an order stopping payment of the revenue of certain lands enjoyed by the temple to the petitioner or his agents. It was contended that the temple was not an estate, and was neither a State grant, and could not have been taken under the Court of Wards, more so as none of the conditions necessary for placing an estate under Court of Wards existed in this case. THE State of Rajasthan, the Commissioner, Kotah Division the Collector. Kotah District, the Assistant Officer, Court of Wards, Kotah,and the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, were made respondents. On behalf of the respondents, it was denied that the temple was the private temple of the petitioner but it was admitted that he was the manager of the temple of Shri Chhota Mathureshji at Kotah. It was stated that the temple was taken under the supervision and management of Court of Wards after due enquiry and satisfaction, as it was in the best interest of the Deity,who was a minor in the eye of law. It was alleged that the income of the landed property was being utilised for the maintenance of the temple. It was urged that the idol was a minor in the eye of law, and the temple, which was the abode of the idol, and all other properties which belong to the idol had been rightly taken possession of by the Court of Wards as a guardian of the minor. It was urged that the petitioner was mismanaging the properties of the Deity, and was wasting and damaging the same, and it was considered necessary in the interest of the idol to safeguard the properties of the Deity, and they were, therefore, placed under the Court of Wards. It was finally urged that the petitioner had no legal right in the properties of the idol, and no legal or fundamental right of the petitioner had been infringed. It was contended that petitioner, if he had any grievance, should seek his remedy by a suit, where the complicated question as to the status of the petitioner would be thoroughly thrashed out. It is not necessary to decide in this case whether the temple of Shri Chhota Mathureshji is a private temple owned by the petitioner or the petitioner was only a manager or trustee, for in either case he has right to remain in possession of the temple. Even on the admission of the respondents, a manager of a public temple is entitled to remain in possession of the property, unless he can be removed in due course of law. It is, therefore, not necessary to direct the petitioner to seek his remedy by a regular suit on the score that he has to establish his title as owner of the temple. The Court of Wards can assume superintendence of the estate of any disqualified landholder under the provisions of sec. 12 of the Rajasthan Court of Wards Act 1951. That section, and sec. 8 to which it refers are as follows: - "8. (1 ). Landholders shall be deemed to be disqualified to manage their own estate when they are - (a) minors; (b) persons adjudged by a competent Civil Court to be of unsound mind and incapable of managing their own estate; (c) persons declared by the Government to be incapable of managing or unfitted to manage their own estate - (i) owing to any physical or mental defect or infirmity unfitting them for the management of their own estate; (ii) owing to their having been convicted of non-bailable offence or being unfitted by vicious habits or bad character for the management of their own estate, (iii) owing to their having entered upon a course of extravagance, (iv) owing to their failure without sufficient reason to discharge the debts and liabilities due by them, (v) owing to such mismanagement as has caused general discontent among the tenants: - Provided that no such declaration shall be made under sub-clause (iii) or (iv), unless the Government is satisfied that such extravagance or such failure to discharge the said debts and liabilities is likely to lead to the dissipation of the estate. (2) No declaration under clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) shall be made until the landholder has been furnished with a detailed statement of the grounds on which it is proposed to disqualify him and has had an opportunity of showing cause why such declaration should not be made. 12. (1) The Court of Wards shall assume the superintendence of the estate of any landholder disqualified under clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 8 or in regard to whose estate a declaration has been made under sec. 10. (2) The Court of Wards may in its discretion assume or refrain from assuming the superintendence of: - (a) the estate or person and estate of any landholder disqualified under clause (a) or (b) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 8, (b) the person of any landholder disqualified under clause (c) of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 8. (3) The Court of Wards may assume the superintendence of the person of any minor who has an immediate or revision-ary interest in the estate: - (a) of any landholder disqualified under sec. 8; or (b) of any landholder in regard to whose estate a declaration has been made under sec 10. " The exercise of power under sec. 12 is conditioned by the existence of circumstances mentioned in sec. 8 and !0 of the Act. The declaration under sec. 10 mentioned in sec. 12 (1) is one which is to be made on the application of the landholder himself, and does not concern us as no application was made by the petitioner for placing the property under the Court of Wards. The case was sought to be brought under sec. 8 of the Act. The argument that the idol was a minor, and, therefore, included in the category of disqualified landholders under sec. 8 (\) (a) is entirely without foundation, for under sec. 4 (iii) a minor is defined as "a person who, under sec. 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, has not attained his majority". The definition is specific, and an idol does not come within the meaning of a minor as defined above. Clause (b) of sec. 8 has no application and no declaration has been made under clause (c) by the Government in respect of the petitioner. Here, again, in clauses (b) and (c) juristic persons are not contemplated. The petitioner himself may be a landholder as there are certain lands attached to the temple and the temple is managed by the petitioner, but he was neither a minor nor disqualified in any other manner mentioned in clauses (b) and (c) of sec. 8. The Commissioner of Kotah, who, according to the learned Government Advocate, had been delegated the power of the Court of Wards under sec. 7 (2) of the Act had thus no authority to assume the superintendence of the temple under colour of the exercise of the power under sec. 12 of the Court of Wards Act. It has been held in several cases by this Court that where the landholder does not suffer from any disqualification mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sec. 8, the action of the Court of Wards is unauthorised, and a direction should be given to the Court of Wards to release the property. The petition is, therefore, allowed, and the respondents are directed to release the temple and the property of the temple from the superintendence of the Court of Wards, and to deliver possession thereof to the petitioner. The respondents will pay the costs of the petitioner which are assessed at Rs. 50/ - . ;