1970 (11) TMI 110 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Ownership of the Temple and idol.
2. Right to worship and interference with that right.
3. Maintainability of the suit as a civil dispute.
4. Validity of Trial Judge's findings based on inspection.
5. Right of Digamberies to worship without interference.
6. High Court's modification of worship hours.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of the Temple and idol:
The High Court was criticized for not deciding the ownership of the Temple or the idol. The Appellants argued that a presumption of ownership should arise given the Swetamberies' management and possession of the Temple. However, the courts found that the Temple is ancient and both Digamberies and Swetamberies worshipped there. The idol was determined to be 'Nirakar' (naked) without Chakshus, Mukat, Armlet, Dhwajadand, or Kalash, indicating it was consecrated by the Digamberies. The right to worship a Digamberi idol by both sects was possible and had been established.

2. Right to worship and interference with that right:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their right to perform Darshan, Prakshal, and Poojan according to Digamberi tenets without interference. The defendants' attempt to place Chakshus on the idol and other changes were seen as interfering with these rights. The Trial Court and District Judge found that while the Swetamberies managed the Temple, they could not alter the idol or Temple in ways that would prevent Digamberies from worshipping according to their tenets. The High Court affirmed these findings, ensuring the Digamberies' right to worship was protected.

3. Maintainability of the suit as a civil dispute:
The High Court held that the suit involved a civil dispute as it concerned the right to worship, which is a civil right. The Appellants' contention that the suit did not raise a civil dispute was rejected. The courts referenced precedents, including the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, affirming that interference with the right to worship is a civil matter.

4. Validity of Trial Judge's findings based on inspection:
The Appellants argued that the Trial Judge's findings were vitiated as they were based on personal inspection. However, the courts found that the Trial Judge's observations during the site inspection were used to understand the evidence and were not the sole basis for the judgment. The presence of counsel for both parties during the inspection and the lack of earlier objections to the inspection notes further validated the findings.

5. Right of Digamberies to worship without interference:
The courts consistently found that the Digamberies had the right to worship the idol without interference from the Swetamberies. The Trial Court issued a permanent injunction against the Swetamberies from altering the idol or Temple in ways that would affect the Digamberies' worship. The High Court upheld this, ensuring the Digamberies could worship according to their tenets.

6. High Court's modification of worship hours:
The High Court modified the worship hours to allow the Respondents to worship from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. instead of 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m., ensuring the Temple remained open during this period. This modification was deemed reasonable and did not affect the Swetamberies' rights, as they could also worship during this time without disturbing the Digamberies.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the Digamberies' right to worship without interference and upholding the High Court's modification of worship hours. The courts emphasized the civil nature of the dispute and the importance of protecting the right to worship.