Further a plea was taken in the written statement that the suit filed against the trustees of the public trust and the reliefs prayed in the plaint directly relate to administration and management of the public trust and as such without making the temple trust a party, the suit was number maintainable in view of Sections 50, 51, 79 and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act read with Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs filed the instant suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are hereditary archaks of Shri Mahaganapathy Vinayaka Dev Temple of Idagunji in Honnavar Taluk and for companysequential reliefs like declaring that the order of termination issued by defendants dated 21st September, 1994 is illegal, void and companytrary to the principles of natural justice etc.
In order to get rid of the plaintiffs, the defendants issued a numberice dated 21st September, 1994 terminating their services as archaks.
At the stage of evidence the defendants filed an application under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure that certain issues relating to maintainability of the suit be tried as preliminary issues.
The question has arisen in the companytext of bar created by Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Regarding suits falling within the categories enumerated in Section 50 of the Act, either the Charity Commissioner has to file them or they have to be filed after obtaining companysent in writing of the Charity Commissioner.
Interim stay of the impugned order was passed on the first day of hearing, i.e. on 7th May, 2004.
Thereafter, the trustees allegedly prepared a Niyamavali Rule Book meant for regulating the activities like Pooja and Viniyogas etc.
Injunction was sought to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs in performing their duties as archaks.
According to plaintiffs the trustees had numberright to remove hereditary archaks like the plaintiffs.
On this companynt, the priest has to accept the many negative karmas of the donor and to mitigate this, the priest has to perform penance.
According to the defendants, the plaintiffs had number obtained the permission of the Charity Commissioner as required under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act to file the present suit.
According to the plaintiffs, their family has been performing poojapali and exercising the rights incidental thereto since ancient times.
The trial companyrt as well as the High Court have rejected this plea raised by the defendants appellants.
Further, in view of the fact that the suit had been pending for more than 10 years, a direction was issued to the trial companyrt to dispose of the suit on merits within six months.
The High Court declined to interfere with the order of the trial companyrt and accordingly dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.
The defendants appellants filed a written statement denying the rights of the plaintiffs to be hereditary archaks.
Padiakki is the rice and companyonut given by the devotees as dan donation to the officiating priest to take home.
Leave was granted and the order under appeal was stayed by this companyrt on 30th August, 2004.
The trustees sought to remove the plaintiffs from archakship.
The defendants filed a Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court.
The plaintiffs challenged the said numberice as illegal and untenable.
It was further pleaded that the temple was under a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Briefly, the facts are the plaintiffs respondents herein claiming to be hereditary archaks of the temple in suit from times immemorial and having a right to perform their duties poojapal as archaks in the temple, filed a civil suit for declaration to establish these rights.
According to the plaintiffs the archakship is number a job or vocation but a hereditary religious office, functions whereof they have to discharge ungrudgingly.
The trust was created much later and the trustees are only managers of the properties of the trust.
The Niyamavali had numberlegal or statutory backing.
The defendants, according to the said order, have companye up before this companyrt by way of a petition for special leave to appeal.
A state of harmony and companyperation between the trustees and archaks companytinued till 1974 75.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed as many as 32 issues.
This companytinued till the year 1930 whereafter they stopped having a member of the plaintiffs families on the Board of trustees.
The plaintiffs also claimed that they are entitled to emoluments in the form of share in the offerings made by the devotees.
One of the members of the families of the plaintiffs used to be appointed as a trustee of the Board which companysisted of five trustees at the initial stages.
After the introduction of the Madras Endowment Act, the trustees were appointed.
This right of archakship started with the companysecration of the deity.
In fact the ancestors of the plaintiffs who were performing the functions as archaks also acted as managers and custodians of the temple and its properties.
The plaintiffs had been exercising their rights to the knowledge of the defendants who are the trustees of the temple trust.
Under the Niyamavali the trustees also tried to interfere with the right of the plaintiffs regarding remuneration and donations received by them from the devotees.
The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that they are hereditary archaks of the temple in question.
The application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge.
The plaintiffs further pleaded that often the offerings to the deity are symbol of sacrificial dedication of the produce of the land grown by the efforts of the devotees.
According to the plaintiffs the emoluments received by the archaks are number the income of the temple.
The said right to act as archaks was in the nature of the property.
The families of the plaintiffs have been performing archakship right from the time of companysecration of the deity.
Further a declaration was sought that the order of termination dated 21st September, 1994 was illegal, void and companytrary to the principles of natural justice.
A declaration was also sought to have share in the offerings to the deity at the temple.
The ancestors of the plaintiffs have been exercising such rights since time immemorial when there was numbertrust for the temple and there were numbertrustees.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at length.
