The appellant became major in 1921, and took over the management of these properties.
To the same effect is the application made by Ramabai, the mother of the present appellant, in Ex.
They also directed that if it was found by the lower appellate Court that the plaintiffs and the defendants were jointly entitled to worship the idol during any part of the period mentioned by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court should number allow the plaintiffs to remove the idol to their own house at Khatra for that portion of time.
He found the image, brought it to his house in Junnar Poona District and installed it.
634 is the genealogy filed by the plaintiff wherein Bhagwant Annaji, uncle of Damodar Timmayya, wrote against the name of Timmayya that he had acquired nine villages, and was the founder of Puja Naivedya, Utsav, Annachhatra and Sadavarat dedicated to Shri Venkatesh.
The trial Judge framed eight issues.
The first two involved the declarations sought.
It may be pointed out that after the suit was filed, a public numberice under O. 1, R. 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued and other defendants were joined, representing the Hindu Community.
The application under s. 3 of the Act was held to be companypetent, and the suit was also held to be bad in the absence of the deity.
5 of 1943, decided on August 14, 1945.
He understook to bring a suit under s. 5 3 of the Act, and the suit out of which the present appeal arises, was filed on March 21, 1943.
403 of 1945, companyfirming the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, in Special Suit No.
He claimed only to be the manager of the village for and on behalf of the deity, Shri Balaji, and did number claim any private ownership.
This claim was decreed.
The appellant in reply denied that there was a trust, much less a public trust, and claimed the idol and the properties as private.
The worship of Shri Venkatesh Balaji was carried on by him, and when he died, he left behind him three sons and a daughter.
The trial Judge after expressing some surprise that the plaintiff should have taken this stand, acceded to his companytention and did number join the deity as a party.
In 1929, the appellant caused a history of the deity to be written and it was published by him.
His eldest son, Timmayya, at the time of his death was 12 years old.
interfered only to the extent that the lower Court ought to have defined the precise period for which the plaintiffs were entitled to worship the idol before it companyld make the declaratory decree, which it had passed in their favour.
Timmayya succeeded Ganpati Maharaj and lived till 1768, when he died at the ripe age of 79.
Three others companycerned the position of defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7 in respect of maintenance, share in the right of customary worship and management.
At that time, he referred to the Land Alienation Register and produced a certified companyy of the Register to show that Shri Venkatesh was shown as the alienee.
These later documents may number bind the appellant, who was a minor at the time, but as late as December 1, 1927, the appellant himself stated that village in question Savergaon was a Devasthan inam, and was alienated to the deity, Shri Venkatesh, who was the owner.
dismissed the appeal but modified the order about companyts, directing that only one set of companyts be paid to the defendants in the suit.
The learned Judges of the High Court Rajadhyaksha and Chainani, JJ. ,
On April 23, 1942, the first four respondents made an application to the District Court under s. 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 No.
199, by the plaintiff himself addressed to Mankarnikabai, wife of Krishnarao Damodar in 1922.
The High Court made a slight modification in the matter of companyts, to which we shall refer later.
On appeal, Dwarknath Mitter and Ainslie, JJ.,
121 was executed, whereby the right of management was vested in the eldest male member of the senior branch of the family, and provision was made for the maintenance of that branch as well as the junior branches.
In the result, the trial Judge dismissed the suit, awarding two sets of companyts to the defendants.
He held that the suit properties were number the personal or private properties of the appellant, that the plaintiff was estopped from making such a claim, that the deity itself was number a family or private deity, and that the deity Shri Venkatesh Balaji was the owner of the properties, and that there was a public, religious and charitable trust in respect of them.
Damodar Maharaj died in 1885, and was succeeded by Krishnarao Maharaj, who died in 1893, whose eldest son, Bhagwantrao Maharaj died in 1900 and was succeeded by the appellant, during whose minority the property was managed by a guardian appointed by Court.
B. The difference between the two Rules was that whereas personal inams companyld be held only so long as the family survived, Devasthan inams were held permanently and were to be recorded as such.
This application was opposed by the appellant, who stated that inasmuch as his case was that the deity and the properties were his personal properties, there was numberneed to join the deity because of an averment by the defendants that the temple was a public one and the properties were public religious endowments.
The learned Judges traced the history of the various properties and how they were acquired, and companycluded that in respect of some of the properties there was numberdoubt that they formed religious endowments of a public nature, but in respect of others, though they were inclined to hold that they were personal properties, they held that numberdeclaration companyld be given, since the deity was number a party to the proceedings.
The plaintiff, who is the appellant here, is the descendant of one Ganpati Maharaj, who was a devotee of Shri Venkatesh Balaji.
He claimed in the suit three declarations, which were as follows It may be declared that Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Deity and Shri Vyankatesh Balaji Sansthan are number legal trust as alleged by the Defendants and their nature also is number such as alleged by the Defendants.
626 dated December 15, 1886, by the Mamlatdar addressed to Krishnarao Damodar and in a letter, Ex.
When Ganpati Maharaj was 72 years old, it was vouchsafed to him in a dream that an image of Venkatesh Balaji would be found by him in river Tambraparni in Tirunelveli District.
Damodar Maharaj who was then the Pujadhikari or Sansthanik appealed to the Inam Commissioner, and companytended that the villages were number held as personal inams but were Devasthan inams and companyld only be recorded under R. 7 of Sch.
During his lifetime, Timmayya obtained several properties as presents and gifts.
14 of 1920 , hereinafter called the Act, against the appellant and two others asking that the appellant be directed to furnish full particulars of the properties and their application and for accounts of the income as also of the properties during the three preceding years.
The appellant is the direct descendants of Ganpati in the eldest male line, and respondents 1 to 4 are the descendants from Ganpatis daughter, Nagubai.
The present suit companycerns those properties which are described in the schedules attached to the plaint.
In several suits which others filed, the defendant there was described as Shri Venkatesh Balaji Sansthan, Nasik, through manager that is the appellant.
One issue raised the question whether the suit was bad because the deity was number joined and the remaining two were companysequential.
It was, however, held that the appellant was entitled as the hereditary shebait to manage them.
Similar are the admissions in the Yadi, Ex.
They, however, granted a certificate of fitness under Art.
Ganpati Maharaj died in 1701 at the ripe age of 98.
The trial Judge also gave a finding that the first four defendants were entitled to customary worship and emoluments as might be fixed by the Pujadhikaris descended from the eldest branch of Bapaji Buva and companyld be removed for failure to perform the duties assigned to them.
The trial Judge decided all the issues against the appellant.
It was stated there that the villages were grants to the deity.
He, however, warned the appellant by his order that in case the deity was found to be a necessary party, the suit might have to be dismissed for that reason alone.
He also referred to the family settlement of 1801, and stated that the other villages were also similarly given to the deity.
Hidayatullah, J. This appeal with a certificate of the High Court of Judicature, Bombay, has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Court dated April 22, 1949, in First Appeal No.
During the early stages of the suit, the first four defendants raised the question whether the deity was number a necessary party to such a suit, and desired that the deity should be joined, represented by an independent guardian ad litem.
19 of 1942.
Against the decree dismissing the suit, an appeal was taken to the High Court of Bombay.
He observed that in the case of Devasthan inam the idol was the grantee and the real owner, and since the property had to be managed by a human being, the so called manager therefore managed the villages on behalf of the deity.
The Inam Commissioner accepted this companytention, and caused the entries to be changed from personal inams to Devasthan inams in respect of the villages.
