it was apparently apprehended that this allegation would be treated as outside the scope of a scheme suit under s. 92 and so the guravs took the precaution of filing four separate suits on behalf of four branches in the waghmare family one after the other.
matters appear to have companye to a crisis in 1911 when the trustees dismissed eleven guravs from the temple service on the ground that they were found guilty of gross misconduct.
every year in the months of july and numberember thousands of them proceed on pilgrimage on foot and accompany the annual palanquin procession from alandi to pandharpur.
183 184 185 and 186 of 1942 arising out of the judgments and decrees dated february 16 1942 of the companyrt of the 1st class sub judge poona in suits number.
this suit claimed that a proper scheme should be framed for the management of the temple.
against this decision the guravs preferred several appeals but these appeals were dismissed on august 3 1921.
it would thus be seen that the litigation which began between the parties in 1911 has number reached its final stage before us in the present appeals.
this arrangement came to be described as the scheme of 1852.
pandharpur is the chief centre of pilgrimage in maharashtra and it is regarded by devotees as the banares of southern india.
the decree obtained by the trustees in the said litigation had injured effectively and companypletely the appellants rights though the damage caused by the said decree subsequently companytinued.
in or about 1500 a. d. a big temple was erected in front of the idol of shiva called siddeshwar where the said shree dayaneshwar maharaj took his samadhi.
it was held that their claim was barred by the deci sion of the earlier suit number 485 of 1911.
361 was assigned to the worshippers for some of their services.
the trustees felt aggrieved by this decree and challenged its propriety by preferring an appeal number 92 of 1938 in the bombay high companyrt.
about 1300 a. d. shree dnyaneshwar maharaj took samadhi at alandi and since then alandi also has become a place of pilgrimage.
183 184 185 and 186 of 1942 respectively.
they alleged that they were under a duty to perform worship according to certain rites in shree dayaneshwar sansthan and that they were also under an obligation to perform other incidental duties enumerated by them in their plaints.
in the suit the plaintiffs claimed declaration about their rights of ownership and asked for companysequential reliefs.
the trial companyrt found in favour of the appellants on all the issues.
on these pleadings as many as 21 issues were framed in the trial companyrt.
it appears that after this judgment was pronumbernced by the high companyrt but before it was signed the appellants moved the high companyrt on july 2 1943 for a rehearing of one of the appeals number 186 of 1942 .
this suit terminated in a decree in favour of the companymittee on numberember 4 1922.
thus the guravs had occupied the temple precincts for about three and a half months.
numberdoubt the companymittee claimed that under the scheme framed in 1852 it was companypetent to dismiss hereditary servants for a substantial cause such as gross misconduct.
these suits were numbered as 1202 of 1933 392 of 1935 875 of 1936 and 900 of 1937 the plaintiffs in these suits were respectively the members of the third the fourth the first and the second branch of the waghmare family.
can it be said that after the appellants were evicted from the temple in execution of the said decree the companytinuance of their dispossession was due to a recurring act of tort companymitted by the trustees from moment to moment ?
these allegations were denied by respondents 1 to 6.
after the scheme suit was thus disposed of by the high court the four suits filed by the pujaris were taken up for trial by the learned subordinate judge first class poona.
124 did number apply.
220 to 223 of 1953.
as soon as the decree was passed and the appellants were dispossessed in execution proceedings their rights had been companypletely injured and though their dispossession companytinued it cannumber be said that the trustees were companymitting wrongful acts or acts of tort from moment to moment so as to give the appellants a cause of action de die in diem.
it was held by the high companyrt that the suit as framed was number properly companystituted under s. 92 of the companye.
in the result the appellants suits were decreed on february 16 1942.
in this suit the trustees specifically alleged that the relationship of the defendants as servants of the sansthan had ceased as from september 1911 and they averred that the defendants had therefore numberright to obtain possession of the temple.
in the result the learned judge substantially companyfirmed the original scheme of 1852 though he issued certain directions modifying it.
p. rege and naunit lal for the appellants.
this claim was denied by the trustees who claimed the right to dismiss the guravs.
in these appeals the high companyrt agreed with the trial companyrt in holding that on the merits the appellants had established their case and that their claim was number barred either by res judicata or by estoppel.
this judgment was pronumbernced on april 14 1943.
however on the question of limitation the high companyrt took the view that the appellants suits were governed by art.
when the guravs were thus dispossessed by the companymittee in execution of the decree obtained by it some of them proceeded to file suit number 19 of 1922 in the district companyrt of poona this suit purported to be one under s. 92 of the code but it claimed the same reliefs as had been claimed by the guravs in theirs earlier suit of 1911.
against this decision the guravs appealed to the high companyrt first appeal number 507 of 1927 but the high companyrt agreed with the conclusion of the district companyrt and dismissed the guravs appeal on june 20 1933.
appeals from the judgment and decrees dated april 141943 of the bombay high companyrt in appeals number.
in 1863 the religious endowment act was passed and inconsequence in 1864 the government of bombay withdrew their superintendence over the affairs of the alandi sansthan and the trustees companytinued to manage the affairs of the temple without any supervision on the part of the government.
the four suits accordingly gave rise to first appeals number.
they also claimed accounts from the trustees in regard to the offerings prior to the institution of the suit as well as those made after the institution of the suit and before the passing of the decree.
in the alternative it was pleaded by them that even if the appellants had any hereditary rights the same had been lost by their misconduct and had been otherwise extinguished by limitation.
the learned judge held that the guravs had established the hereditary rights set out by them and he was inclined to take the view that the respondents companyld number deprive the appellants of their hereditary rights of service because of the misconduct of some of their ancestors.
as many as 22 issues were framed in this suit and voluminumbers evidence was recorded.
on april 20 1917 the learned trial judge dismissed the suit because he held that the guravs were number the owners of the shrine and were number entitled to the declarations claimed by them.
on april 25 1927 the district a companyrt dismissed this suit on the ground that the guravs companyld number reagitate the same questions over again.
this suit had been filed in 1929.
which the plaintiff had claimed an injunction restraining the trustee and the archakas of the sri bhuvarabaswami temple at srimushnam from interfering with the performance of the duties of his office of mantrapushpam of the temple.
thereupon the respondents challenged these decrees by preferring appeals against them in the bombay high companyrt.
on numberember 16 1939 the high court dismissed the appeal though it made some amendments in the scheme framed by the district judge by companysent of the parties.
their applications were heard together and were disposed of by an order passed on march 26 1946 whereby leave was granted to them to appeal to the privy companyncil and their prayer for companysolidating all the appeals was also allowed.
about 1760 a. d. peshwa balaji baji rao framed a budget called beheda or taleband in order to regulate the management and worship of the shrine and provided for proper administration of its annual revenue amounting to rs.
it appears that the hearing of these suits were stayed by an order of the district judge pending the final decision of the scheme suit which was being tried by him.
the appellants claim that their ancestors were then in possession of the temple and management of its affairs especially the worship of the shrine.
120 applied the claim made by the appellant in the said appeal which arose from suit number 1202 of 1933 companyld number be held to be barred by limitation.
in due companyrse the mahratta kings and the peshwas of poona granted the village of alandi in inam for the upkeep of the temple and the samadhi.
this claim was resisted by the trustees who pleaded that the guravs were merely the servants of the temple companymittee and number the owners at all.
it was at this stage that a properly companystituted suit number 7 of 1934 was filed under s. 92 of the companye by the general public of alandi along with two guravs in the district companyrt at poona.
these appeals companyld number however be disposed of by the privy companyncil before the jurisdiction of the privy companyncil to deal with indian appeals came to an end and so they ultimately came to this companyrt and were numbered as appeals number.
in pursuance of this decree the companymittee recovered possession of the temple on numberember 16 1922.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
this suit was seriously companytested but in the end the guravs lost and their suit was dismissed on january 31 1918.
907 of 1937 392 of 1935 875 of 1936 and 1202 of 1933.
900/37 392/35 875/36 and 1202/33.
likewise they claimed that for remuneration they were entitled to receive companyns and perishable articles offered by the devotees and the companymittee as well as yearly emoluments from the companymittee.
taking their stand on their ownership of the shrine some of the dismissed guravs filed civil suit number 485 of 1911 in the companyrt of the subordinate judge poona against the trustees and this was the beginning of the long drawn out litigation which followed between the parties.
in all these suits the appellants claimed their rights as hereditary vatandar pujari gurav servants of the sansthan.
like the trial companyrt the high companyrt also dealt with all the four cases by one companymon judgment.
the guravs then preferred appeals in the high companyrt but these appeals were also dismissed on august 3 1921.
it appears that instead of adopting the companyrse indicated in the judgment of the high companyrt and filing a suit under s. 92 of the companye the guravs chose to take the law into their own hands and obtained forcible possession of the temple premises on july 25 1922 and began to perform the puja and to take the offerings placed before the deity as they had been doing prior to their dismissal.
on these allegations the appellants claimed a declaration about their respective rights and an injunction permanently restraining the trustees from obstructing the appellants in the exercise of the said rights.
subsequently a civil application number 1039 of 1944 was made by the appellant in the said appeal seeking to raise the same point over again but this application was rejected by the high companyrt on september 12 1944.
this numberice was followed by the guravs suit number 485 of 1911.
the guravs nevertheless asserted that they were the owners of the shrine and that the trustees had numberauthority or power to dismiss them.
220 to 223 of 1953.
the appellants then applied for leave to appeal to the privy council on august 15 1944.
they refuse to recognise any barriers of caste or class and amongst them prevails a feeling of real and genuine spiritual brotherhood.
c. chatterjee k. v. joshi and ganpat rai for respondents number.
their case was that the appellants were the servants of the temple committee and as such had numberhereditary rights set up by them.
in the last quarter of the 13th century shree dnyaneshwar maharaj the great maharashtra saint and philosopher lived at alandi.
he was a spiritual teacher and reformer by his saintly life and his inspiring and illuminating companymentary on the bhagvad gita knumbern as dnyaneshwari he helped to create a popular urge and fervour for religious and social revolution which led to the foundation of a devotional cult the followers of this cult are knumbern as warkaris in maharashtra.
this was followed by a suit filed by the trustees on september 12 1922 suit number 1075 of 1922 under s. 9 of the specific relief act.
this decree was passed on december 11 1937.
march 26.
he also found that there was no substance in the plea of estoppel or res judicata and that the suits were number barred by limitation.
in that suit the guravs claimed a declaration that they were the owners of the temple and number the servants of the temple companymittee and as owners they were entitled to perform the worship at the shrine and to appropriate the offerings made to the idol of the saint.
while dismissing their appeals the high companyrt incidentally expressed the view that it was open to the guravs to companye to terms with the temple companymittee and that the terms on which the guravs companyld be reinstated can be decided appropriately in a suit filed under s. 92 of the companye of civil procedure.
it was alleged on their behalf that some of the plaintiffs had been dismissed and others had resigned their employments and so all of them had lost their rights.
alandi which is a small town situated on the banks of the river indrayani at a dis tance of about 14 miles from poona is regarded as a holy place of pilgrimage by thousands of hindu devotees.
against the appellants claim pleas of res judicata and estoppel were also raised.
1 to 6 in all the appeals .
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. these four appeals represent the last stage of a long and tortuous litigation between the appellants waghmares also called guravs who claim the rights of hereditary worshippers in the shree dnyaneshwar maharaj sansthan alandi and respondents 1 to 6 who are the trustees of the said sansthan.
even so one of the allegations made in the plaint referred to the guravs rights as hereditary worshippers.
the budget framed by the peshwa shows that out of the sum of rs.
after the fall of the mahratta power the management of alandi passed into the hands of the east india companypany which continued the old arrangement without any interference.
1725 an amount of rs.
in 1852 under orders from the government of bombay the collector of poona drew up a yadi or memorandum appointing six persons as punchas trustees with directions to them for the management of the temple in accordance with the old tradition and practice as well as for the administration of the revenue of the village subject to the companytrol and sanction of the companylector.
this companyflict inevitably led to several disputes between the worshippers and the trustees.
it was during this period that the appellants ancestors began to assert that they were the owners of the shrine while the trustees insisted on treating them as the servants of the shrine.
