2013 (3) TMI 812 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court u/s 80 of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
2. Right of appellants as ancestral Pujaris.
3. Bar of suit u/r Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court u/s 80 of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950:
The primary issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appellants, given the bar u/s 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The High Court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by Section 80 of the Act, as the matter of the temple's registration as a public trust was pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Supreme Court, however, held that the appellants were only claiming their rights as ancestral Pujaris and not as trustees of any trust. The reliefs sought did not fall within the ambit of Sections 19 or 79 of the Act, which would necessitate an inquiry by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner. Therefore, the bar u/s 80 of the Act did not apply, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. Right of appellants as ancestral Pujaris:
The appellants claimed to be the ancestral Pujaris of the Amogsidda Temple, performing Puja and receiving offerings for over six hundred years. They sought a declaration of their Pujariki rights and an injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with these rights. The trial court had partly decreed in favor of the appellants, recognizing their rights to perform Puja by turns with the respondents. The First Appellate Court further modified the decree, affirming the appellants as hereditary Pujaris and prohibiting the respondents from causing any obstruction. The Supreme Court found that the appellants' claim was solely about their rights as Pujaris, which did not require adjudication by the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

3. Bar of suit u/r Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C.:
The respondents contended that the suit was barred u/r Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. because a previous suit filed by the appellants in 1967 had been dismissed for want of prosecution. The Supreme Court did not find this contention sufficient to bar the present suit, as the appellants had continuously exercised their right of Puja without objection until the recent interference by the respondents.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment and decree, and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on the second appeals. The appellants were entitled to their costs.