1992 (12) TMI 223 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the sale of a shop by Ganesh Dutt to respondents nos. 2 and 3.
2. Nature of the temple of Shri Radha Govindji (public or private).
3. Right of Smt. Bhagwati Devi to dedicate the shop to the deity.
4. Admission by Ram Babu regarding the shop being temple property.
5. Right of appellants to challenge the sale deed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Sale of a Shop by Ganesh Dutt:
The appellants challenged the sale of a shop by Ganesh Dutt to respondents nos. 2 and 3, asserting that the shop was dedicated to the deity and Ganesh Dutt, as a manager, had no right to sell it. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, but the appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the shop was not dedicated to the deity and that Smt. Bhagwati Devi had no right to dispose of the property after adopting Ram Babu. The Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration of whether the shop was endowed to the deity.

2. Nature of the Temple of Shri Radha Govindji:
The High Court agreed with the findings of the trial court and the Additional District Judge that the temple is a public temple. This finding was not contested further, and the Supreme Court did not disturb this conclusion.

3. Right of Smt. Bhagwati Devi to Dedicate the Shop to the Deity:
The appellate court held that Smt. Bhagwati Devi had no right to dedicate the shop to the deity as she had adopted Ram Babu, making him the rightful heir. The High Court affirmed this finding, stating that the ex-parte decree obtained by Smt. Bhagwati Devi to cancel the adoption was void. The Supreme Court did not find fault with this conclusion but focused on the admissions made by Ram Babu regarding the shop's status.

4. Admission by Ram Babu Regarding the Shop Being Temple Property:
The appellants relied on admissions made by Ram Babu in a previous suit, where he claimed the shop as temple property and himself as the manager. The High Court initially dismissed these admissions, noting that Ram Babu was a minor during the litigation. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that Sushila Devi was the guardian of Ganesh Dutt, who was substituted for Ram Babu during the suit. The Supreme Court emphasized that these admissions, unless explained, could infer dedication of the shop to the deity. The matter was remitted to the High Court to consider this aspect.

5. Right of Appellants to Challenge the Sale Deed:
The Supreme Court upheld the appellants' right to challenge the sale deed, noting that worshippers of a public temple have the right to file a suit to set aside a transfer of immovable property made by a manager. The Court referenced established legal principles that worshippers are the true beneficiaries of religious endowments and can challenge unauthorized alienations.

Separate Judgment:
In SLP (Civil) No. 6544 of 1992, the Supreme Court addressed the dismissal of a review petition by the High Court. The High Court had dismissed the review petition on the grounds that the special leave petition against the main judgment was pending, leading to an automatic merger of the High Court's judgment with the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's judgment would only merge with the Supreme Court's order after the latter had considered the special leave petition on merits. Therefore, the review petition was maintainable until the Supreme Court passed an order on the special leave petition. The special leave petition was dismissed as infructuous following the setting aside of the High Court's judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the matter for reconsideration of whether the shop was endowed to the deity. The review petition was dismissed with observations clarifying the High Court's competence to review its judgment despite the pending special leave petition.