The defendants also preferred cross objections challenging the propriety of that part of the trial Courts decree which was in favour of the plain tiffs.
It appears that in 1892 certain rules were framed by the then Rawal for regulation of pilgrims in the Badrinath temple, and to these rules the Commissioner of Kumaun Division accorded his sanction on 4th July, 1892.
It is from this judgment that the present appeal has companye before us, It was held by the High Court that the plaintiffs failed miserably to establish that there was any immemorial usage in existence under which they were entitled to accompany the pilgrims, as of right, inside the precincts of the temple.
Against this order of dismissal, an appeal was taken by the plaintiffs to the High Court of Allahabad and a Division Bench of the High Court, by its judgment dated 23rd May, 1938, reversed the decision of the Civil Judge on this preliminary point and remanded the case for hearing of the suit on its merits.
On appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 22nd November, 1946, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Verma c.J. and Mathur J. in First Appeal No.
The appeal was heard by a Division Bench companysist ing of Varma C.J. and Mathur J. and, by their judgment dated 22nd November, 1946, the learned Judges dismissed the plaintiffs appeal and allowed the cross objections filed by the defendants.
It was asserted, further, that all gifts made within the precincts of the temple would vest in the temple companymittee under section 3 b of the Act and that the companymit tee had the absolute right to regulate entry of persons inside the temple.
S. Krishnaswamy lyengar R. C. Ghatak and N.C. Sen, with him for the appellants.
five Deopray agi Pandas filed a suit in the Court of the Deputy Collec tor, Garhwal, who was invested with the powers of a Civil Court, praying for a declaration of their right to go inside the temple with their Yajmans which the Rawal was number willing to allow unless he gave special permission.
The petition was eventually rejected, and on 19th August, 1895.
One of these rules, namely Rule 3 , expressly laid down that at the time of darshan by the pilgrims, numberother persons and Pandas shall be allowed to go inside the temple along with the pilgrims.
Like other pilgrims, and persons who are all subject to the companytrol of the companyditions that may be imposed by the Committee, the Deoprayagi Pandas can also enter the temple, perform worship there, and even help their Yajmans who happen to be inside the temple.
In other words, there is numberright of the plaintiffs which has to be recognised, and can be recognised, on the grounds of custom, usage, or otherwise, that they can without any let or hin drance and regardless of the companyditions imposed by the Committee, enter the temple with the pilgrims whenever they like.
Besides certain pleas in bar which were raised by the de fendants in their written statements and in regard to which the trial judges decision was in favour of the plaintiffs, the substantial companytroversy between the parties centred round the two following points Whether the Deoprayagi Pandas companyld accompany their Yajmans or clients inside the temple and assist them in the darshan and worship of the deities Whether the Pandas would have the right to accept within the precincts of the temple whatever was paid by the pilgrims as gifts or presents to them and number to the temple As regards the first point, the learned Civil Judge reviewed the entire evidence relating to the practice of admitting the Pandas along with their Yajmans inside the temple, as it obtained from very early times down to the date of the institution of the suit.
Their entering the temple can be permitted when they did so as pilgrims.
It was companytended primarily that the suit as framed, was number maintainable by reason of the provisions of Sri Badrinath Temple Act of 1939, which abrogated all previous rights and customs and vested the ownership of the temple and its endowments in the temple companymittee.
On 22nd October, 1894, an application was filed before the Commissioner of Kumaun Division by some residents of Deoprayag companyplaining of unjust prohibition from entering the temple by the new manager and it was prayed that directions might be given to the said Manager to desist from encroaching upon the time honoured rights of the Pandas.
A number of issues were framed after this written state ment was filed, and on hearing the evidence adduced by the parties, the Civil Judge disposed of the suit by his judg ment dated 4th March, 1941.
It is to be numbered that after the judgment of the trial companyrt was delivered and the appeal came up for hearing before the High Court, the Badrinath Temple Committee passed a resolution which was approved of by the Governor of the P. State, and was to the following effect Subject to the provision of bye laws and any direction given by the companymittee, the Pandas can accompany their Yajmans within the temple.
K. Dar D. D. Unival, with him for the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Thus, the decision resulted in a total dismissal of the plaintiffs suit.
the said companymittee through its Secretary, was impleaded as Defendant No.
The suit was decreed in part and the plaintiffs were given a declaration in their favour on one of the points in an attenuated and restricted form.
The companymittee filed a fresh written statement in which certain additional grounds were taken.
On these pleadings, two issues of a preliminary nature were framed by the Civil Judge, one of them being, whether the plaintiffs suit was barred by res judicata.
105 of 1951.
The case then went back before the Civil Judge and while it was still pending, the Sri Badrinath Temple Act was passed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEA J. The sanctity which orthodox Hindu thought and feeling attribute to visiting of sacred places is numberhere better illustrated than in the vast companycourse of pilgrims, who are attracted every year, from all parts of India, to the mountain shrines at Badrinath, situated, high up in the Himalayas, in the District of Garhwal.
This unsatisfactory state of affairs led to public agitation and demand for reforms, and in 1939, the U.P.Legislature passed the Sri Badrinath Temple Act, the object of which was to remove the chief defects in the existing system of management.
1 of 1934.
It is said that in performance of their duties they meet the pilgrims at Hardwar and company duct them throughout the pilgrimage to different places of sanctity and finally to Badrinath itself.
The place to which the appellation of Puri is given, companytains a number of temples but the principal temple is the one where the idol Badrinath along with some other subsidiary idols is installed.
This issue was decided against the plaintiff and the Civil Judge dis missed the suit on 18 9 1934 holding that the suit was barred by the rule of res judicata, as an earlier suit brought by five of the Deoprayagi Pandas and claiming iden tical reliefs against the Rawal was dismissed by the Commissioner of the Kumaun Division in the year 1896.
for report and in the body of the order he recorded his opinion that the duty of the Pandas companysists numbermally in escorting the pilgrims to the temple precincts.
The pilgrims gather in the middle room they have darshan or look at the deity from this place and there also they make their offerings and perform other rites of individual worship.
This resolution was companymunicated to the plaintiffs by the 2nd defendant by a letter dated 29th May, 1942, and undoubtedly after passing of this resolution, the grievance of the plaintiffs in regard to temple entry disappeared to a large extent.
obstructed and threatened to obstruct the plaintiffs from entering the precincts of the temple along with their Yajmans or clients and unlawful ly restrained them from assisting the pilgrims in the usual way at the time of darshan and worship of the deities inside the temple.
This scheme apparently did number work well and led to companystant friction between the Rawal on the one hand and the Tehri Durbar on the other.
This main temple is divided into three por tions or apartments, and to the innermost portion which is companysidered to be the holiest and where the deities are located, numberpilgrim is allowed access.
310 of 1941 arising out of judgment and decree dated the 4th March, 1941, of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge of Pauri, Garhwal, in Original Suit No.
