Saji Koduvath, Advocate.
Introduction.
The management and administration of temple property by Shebait is often described to be similar to that of a manager of the estate of an infant heir.[1] But, Indian Law does not favour it in its full sense.
Position of Shebait: Whether Similar to Guardian of Infant Heir
In Thenappa Chattiar Vs. Karuppan Chettiar[2] our Apex Court referred to the Calcutta High Court decision, in Bimal Krishna’s case,[3] where it was observed that in India, ‘the Crown is the constitutional protector of all infants’; and, as the deity occupies in law the position of an infant, the shebaits who represent the deity were entitled to seek the assistance of the Court in case of mismanagement, fraud or maladministration, and to have a proper scheme for management framed for the administration of the private trust.
Power of trustees to alienate – Analogous to that of a manager for an infant.
In Shridhar Vs. Jagannathji Temple[4] our Apex Court following the Judicial Committee, in Hanooman Prasad Vs. Mt. Babooee,[5] held that the trustees had no power to alienate a debutter property except in case of need or for the benefit of the estate. The power of the trustees of such religious trust to alienate property of the religious endowment was held to be analogous to that of a manager for an infant. In In-Re, Man Singh[6] it is held by the Delhi High Court that in legal theory the Court is the guardian of charity, as it is of an infant.
Court is constitutional protector of all charities
Referring Thenappa Chattiar Vs. Kuruppan Chettiar and Shridhar Vs. Jagannathji Temple, it was observed in Hamumiya Bachumiya Vs. Mehdihusen Gulamhusen[7] that the court, as constitutional protector of all charities, was the sole guardian of the paramount interest of the charities; and its jurisdiction was analogous to one as a protector of the infant.
Alienation of Trust Property – Analogous to that of an Infant Heir
Pollock and Maitland’s ‘History of English Law’, Volume I, p. 463 reads as under:
- “A church is always under aged is to be treated as an infant and it is not according to law that infants should be disinherited by the negligence of their guardians or be barred of an action in case they would complain of things wrongfully done by their guardians while they are under age.”[8]
Mulla’s Treatise on Principles of Hindu Law states as under:
- “The power of a Shebait or a Mohunt to alienate debutter property is analogous to that of a manager for an infant heir as defined by the Judicial Committee in Hanooman Pershand Vs. Mt. Babooee, (1856) 6 Moo Ind App 393 (PC). As held in that case, he has no power to alienate dubutter property except in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate. He is not entitled to sell the property for the purpose of investing the price of it so as to bring in an income larger than that derived from the property itself. Nor can he, except for legal necessity grant a permanent lease of debutter property, though he may create proper derivative tenures and estates conformable to usage.”[9]
Shebait: Guardian of Infant Heir, Analogy Not Favoured by Indian Law
Dr. B K Mukherjea J. did not accept the analogy that the Shebait is the manager of the estate of an infant heir. ‘On Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts’,[10] it is expressed by Dr. BK Mukherjea J. as under:
- “A Hindu idol is sometimes spoken of a perpetual infant, but the analogy is not only incorrect but is positively misleading. There is no warrant for such doctrine in the rules of Hindu Law and as was observed by Rankin, C. J., in Suyendra Vs. Sri Sri Bhubaneshwari, ILR 60 Cal 54: (AIR 1933 Cal 295), it is an extravagant doctrine contrary to the decision of the judicial Committee in such cases as Damodar Das Vs. Lakhan Das.[1] It is true that the deity like an infant suffers from legal disability and has got to act through some agent and there is a similarity also between the powers of the Shebait of a deity and those of the guardian of an infant. But the analogy really ends there. For purposes of Limitation Act the idol does not enjoy any privilege and regarding contractual rights also the position of the idol is the same as that of any other artificial person. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to suits by minors or persons of unsound mind do not in terms at least apply to an idol; and to build up a law of procedure upon the fiction that the idol is an infant would lead to manifestly undesirable and anomalous consequences.”[11]
It was observed by the Privy Council in Prosunno Kumari Debya Vs. Golab Chand Baboo[12] and our Apex Court in Yogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta[13] that the description as to the administration of property by Shebait to be similar to that of a manager of the estate of an infant heir could be in an ‘ideal sense’ alone. In the light of the distinctive and well accepted conceptions as to the legal status of idol and management of its property, the analogies with respect to a minor is not accepted by our courts as apposite in its full details.
The Federal Court, in Kondamudi Sriramulu Vs. Myneni Pundarikakshayya,[14] explained the phrase de facto guardian used in Hanooman Persaud Pandey Vs. Mt. Babooee as under :
- “Before concluding my observations about the scope of the decision in Hanooman Persaud Pandey’s case. 6 MIA. 393: (18 WR 81 PC), I would like to make a few observations about the phrase ‘de facto guardian’. In my opinion, it is a loose phraseology for the expression ‘de facto manager’ employed in Hanooman Persaud Pandey’s case, 6 MIA 393: (18 WR81 PC); their Lordships in different parts of the judgment used the words, guardian, curator and de facto manager. This phrase is certainly not known to any text of Hindu law, but it aptly describes the relations and friends who are interested in the minor and who for love and affection to him assume superintendence over his estate. A father may not necessarily be the guardian of an illegitimate child, but his de facto guardianship cannot be repudiated. Such is the case of the natural father of an adopted son, of Ganga Prasad v. Hara Kanta Chowdhury, 7 KIC 234: (15 CWN 558). A person who is not attached to the minor by ties of affection or other reasons of affinity and remains in charge of his estate is in truth a mere intermeddler with his estate. In order to come within the scope of the rule in Hanooman-persaud Panday’s case it is necessary that there is course of conduct in the capacity of a manager.”
- “In law there is nothing like a de facto guardian. There can only be a de facto manager, although the expression ‘de facto guardian’ has been used in text books and some judgments of Courts. That is the correct description of a person generally managing the estate of a minor without having any legal title to do so.”
This decision is followed by our Apex Court in Madhegowda Vs. Ankegowda.[15]
The property being vested with the idol, a Shebait is not a trustee in the sense it is used in English Law. (Under English Law the legal title of the trust property is vested with trustee. See Blog: Indian Law of Trusts Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership) Still a Shebait is qualified as a trustee in the general or ordinary sense of the term. The Shebait holds the debutter property for carrying into effect the pious purposes as directed by the founder.
Degree of Prudence Expected
A trustee has to administer the affairs of the trust and manage its property as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with the same, if they were of his own. All powers incidental to the prudent and beneficial administration of a charitable or religious institution/ endowment are also entrusted to the trustees. The principles with respect to the same in the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 apply to the public trusts also. Though the Indian Trusts Act does not apply, in terms, to the public trusts, the common legal principles contained in the Act, [16] which cover matters of both public and private trusts, apply to public trusts also.[17]
Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Sec. 15 reads as under:
- Sec. 15. Care required from trustee.—A trustee is bound to deal with the trust property as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with such property if it were his own (and a trustee so dealing is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the trust property).
It was observed in Jagat Narain Vs. Mathura Das[18] that the degree of prudence expected from a manager of an endowment would be the prudence which an ordinary man would exercise with the knowledge available to him.
While considering the sale of an old house by the manager of a temple, which was not in a dilapidated condition but it required extensive repairs, it was held in Behari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabhji[19] that the sale was neither a prudent act nor it was for the benefit of the estate.
In KPLS Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Shreenath Devasikamony Pandara Sannadhi[20] it was laid down that a Shebait would not be justified in selling debutter land solely for the purpose of getting capital to embark in the money lending business. Mulla’s Hindu Law reads:
- “He (Shebait) is not entitled to sell the property for the purpose of investing the price of it so as to bring in an income larger than that derived from the property itself.”[21]
Suit by Worshippers & Appointment of Next Friend
Ordinarily, no person other than the Shebait can represent the idol in civil suits.[22] In certain circumstances a suit can be brought by any person interested in the matters of the deity.
In Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy Vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy[23] our Apex Court held, following Pramath Nath Vs. Pradyumna Kumar,[24] as under:
- “As a matter of law the only person who can represent the deity or who can bring a suit on behalf of the deity is the Shebait, and although a deity is a judicial person capable of holding property, it is only in an ideal sense that property is so held. The possession and management of the property with the right to sue in respect thereof are, in the normal course, vested in the Shebait. But where, however, the Shebait is negligent or where the Shebati himself is the guilty party against whom the deity needs relief it is open to the worshippers or other persons interested in the religious endowment to file suits for the protection of the trust properties. It is open, in such a case, to the deity to file a suit through some person as next friend for recovery of possession of the property improperly alienated or for other relief. Such a next friend may be a person who is a worshipper of the deity or as a prospective Shebait is legally interested in the endowment. In a case where the Shebait has denied the right of the deity to the dedicated properties, it is obviously desirable that the deity should file the suit through a disinterested next friend nominated by the court.”[25]
In Bishwanath Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji, [26] a next friend of the idol challenged the alienation of its properties by the defendant Shebait. One of the defenses taken by the Shebait was that the next friend was not capable of maintaining a suit on behalf of the deity. To the question, can a worshipper as next friend represent the idol when the Shebait acts adversely to its interest and fails to take action to safeguard its interest it was observed as under:
- “On principle we do not see any justification for denying such a right to the worshipper. An idol is in the position of a minor when the person representing it leaves it in a lurch, a person interested in the worship of the idol can certainly be clothed with an ad hoc power of representation to protect its interest. It is a pragmatic, yet a legal solution to a difficult situation. Should it be held that a Shebait, who transferred the property, can only bring a suit for recovery, in most of the cases it will be an indirect approval of the dereliction of the Shebait’s duty, for more often than not he will not admit his default and take steps to recover the property, apart from other technical pleas that may be open to the transferee in a suit. Should it be held that a worshipper can file only a suit for the removal of the Shebait and for the appointment of another in order to enable him to take steps to recover the property, such a procedure will be rather prolonged and a complicated one and the interest of the idol may irreparably suffer. That is why decisions have permitted a worshipper in such circumstances to represent the idol and to recover the property for the idol. It has been held in a number of decisions that worshippers may file a suit praying for possession of a property on behalf of an endowment.”When the Shebait is not willing to sue, or cannot sue because he himself is responsible for the alienation which is to be questioned, or if there is no de facto Shebait or Mahant, the interest of the idol can be protected by a proper person as next friend.[27] Such person should be one who has more than a benevolent interest,[28] such as a worshipper[29] or a person who has made large donations[30] or a de facto trustee[31] or a prospective Shebait or any member of the donor’s family.[32]
Ayodhya Case
In M Siddiq Vs. Mahanth Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case)[33] our Apex Court considered the following questions:
- Can a worshipper institute a suit?
- If so, in what circumstance?
- Can it be in his personal capacity?
- What are the reliefs entitled to by the worshipper?
- Should idol be a necessary party in such a suit?
- Should Shebait be a necessary party in such a suit?
- Should there be a court-appointment as ‘next friend’ of deity?
The legal position handed-down by the Supreme Court can be summarised as under:
- (i) A worshipper can file a suit for enforcing individual rights (like access to the idol or worship) in a personal capacity. Such an ordinary suit can be filed in his own name without being obliged to bring a suit in the name of the idol. The relief may be against the Shebait. The deity is not bound by the suit of the worshippers unless the remedy provided is in rem in nature.
- (ii) If the suit for enforcing individual rights is actually to protect the deity’s interests, such a suit can be filed by a worshipper only ‘on behalf of the deity’.
- (iii) When a Shebait is negligent in its duties or takes actions that are hostile to the deity or improperly alienated trust property or refuses to act for the benefit of the idol or where the Shebait’s actions are prejudicial to the interest of the idol, it becomes necessary to confer on a next friend the right to bring an action in law against the Shebait; and a worshipper has an ad hoc power of representation to protect the interest of the idol.
- (iv) No decree for recovery of possession can be made in such a suit unless the worshipper has the ‘present right to the possession’. But a mere declaratory decree that the alienation is not binding on the deity can be granted.
- (v) The worshippers, out of their own independent action, cannot exercise the deity’s power of suing to protect its own interests, like taking action against a Shebait who acts adverse to the interests of the deity, or for recovery of possession of the property improperly alienated by the Shebait.
- (vi) In such situations, a worshipper must be permitted to sue as next friend of the deity, sue on behalf of the idol itself – directly exercising the deity’s right to sue.
- (vii) The next friend being so allowed, steps into the shoes of the Shebait for the limited purpose of the litigation. Or, the next friend, the worshipper, directly exercises the deity’s right to sue.
- (viii) In a suit for the recovery of property on behalf of the idol, the court cannot deliver possession of the property to the next friend. The next friend is merely a temporary representative of the idol.
- (ix) The court can craft any number of reliefs, including the framing of a scheme. The question of relief is fundamentally contextual and must be framed by the court in light of the parties before it and the circumstances of each case.
- (x) To protect against the threat of a wayward ‘next friend’, the court has to satisfy, in some manner, that the next friend is bona fide and that he can satisfactorily represent the deity.
- (xi) If the next friend’s bona fides are contested, the court must scrutinise the intentions and capabilities of the next friend to adequately represent the deity. In the absence of any objection, and where a court sees no deficiencies in the actions of the next friend, there is no reason why a worshipper should not have the right to sue on behalf of the deity where a Shebait abandons his sacred and legal duties.
- (xii) In an appropriate case, the court can scrutinise the intentions and capabilities of the next friend, of its own accord.
An Appointment of Next Friend Under Order XXXII, CPC Not Necessary
It was made clear in the judgment that ‘the worshipper must be permitted to sue as next friend’. It is not specifically stated that the permission must have been obtained as provided under Order XXXII, CPC (Suits by or against Minors). But, it appears that a ‘scrutiny’ is warranted only ‘if the next friend’s bona fides are contested’. It is held as under:
- “Therefore, where a shebait acts adverse to the interests of the deity, a worshipper can, as next friend of the deity, sue on behalf of the deity itself, provided that if the next friend’s bona fides are contested, the court must scrutinise the intentions and capabilities of the next friend to adequately represent the deity. The court may do so of its own accord, ex debito justitae.”
It is held in the following decisions that a worshipper can, in a proper case, file a suit as next friend of the deity; and appointment by court, under Order XXXII CPC, is not necessary.
- (i) Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj (1985).[35]
- (ii) Ram Ratan Lal Vs. Kashi Nath Tewari (1966).[36]
- (iii) Angoubi Kabuini Vs. Imjao Lairema (1959).[37]
- (iv) Sri Ram Vs. Chandeswar Prasad (1952).[38]
- (v) Sree Sree Sreedhar Jew Vs. Kanta Mohan (1947) [39]
- (vi) Annapurna Devi Vs. Shiva Sundari Dasi (1945).[40]
- (vii) Surendra Krishna Vs. Ishwari Bhubhaneshwari, (1933)[41]
- (viii) Gopalji Maharaj Vs. Krishna Sunder Nath (1929),[42]
The Allahabad High Court, in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Mahara (1985),[43] sought support from the Supreme Court decision in Bishwanath Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji (1967)[44] which held that the worshipper had an ad hoc power of representation of the deity when the Shebait acts adversely. In this decision it was pointed out that no definite procedure was laid down, in the Civil PC, relating to suits on behalf of idol and that the provisions of Order XXXII CPC which related to minor did not specifically provide for the appointment of the next friend of an idol.
Contra view as to appointment of ‘next friend’ by the court under Order XXXII
Following decisions took the view that appointment of next friend by court, under Order XXXII, CPC, is necessary:
- (i) Jogesh Chandra Bera Vs. Iswar Braja Raj Jew Thakur: (1981);[45]
- (ii) Ramaraghava Reddy v. Seshu Reddy: (1967);[46]
- (iii) Iswar Radha Kanta Jew Thakur Vs. Gopinath Das: (1960);[47]
- (iv) Smt. Sushma Roy Vs. Atul Krishna Roy: (1955); [48]
- (v) Sri Ram v. Chandeshwar Prasad: (1952);[49]
- (vi) Tharith Bushan v. Shridhar Salagram Sinha: (1942);[50]
- (vii) Pramatha Nath v. Pradyumna Kumar: (1925)[51]
In Jogesh Chandra Bera Vs. Iswar Braja Raj Jew Thakur (1981)[52] it was held that, suits brought by persons other than the Shebait or a prospective Shebait, must have been instituted through a next friend ‘appointed’ in that behalf by the Court.[53]
Relying on Bishwanath Vs. Radha Ballabhji[54] it is pointed out in Murti Shivji Maharaj Birajman Asthal Mohalla Vs. Mathura Das Chela Naval Das Bairagi (2018) [55] that the Supreme Court held that an idol is in the position of a minor and that when the person representing the idol leaves it in a lurch, a person interested in the worship of the idol can certainly be clothed with an ad hoc power of representation to protect its interests. In this decision of Murti Shivji Maharaj the Allahabad High Court observed as under:
“The Supreme Court referred to the well-known decision of the Privy Council in Pramatha Nath Vs. Pradyumna Kumar, AIR 1925 PC 139, which held that under certain circumstances the idol can be represented by disinterested persons. It is well known that for a Shebait to file a suit, no permission of the Court is necessary. It is only where persons other then Shebaits file suits, an ad hoc power of representation for them is necessary.”
View of Dr. BK Mukherjea: [56]
Fiction – Idol an Infant – would Lead to Anomalous Consequences:
‘Dr. B K Mukherjea on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts’ has taken a firm view that in case of an idol the appointment of Next Friend by court under Order XXXII is not necessary.
It is emphasised by the author as under:
- “A Hindu idol is sometimes spoken of a perpetual infant, but the analogy is not only incorrect but is positively misleading. There is no warrant for such doctrine in the rules of Hindu Law and as was observed by Rankin, C. J. , in Suyendra Vs. Sri Sri Bhubaneshwari,[57] it is an extravagant doctrine contrary to the decision of the judicial Committee in such cases as Damodar Das Vs. Lakhan Das.[58] It is true that the deity like an infant suffers from legal disability and has got to act through some agent and there is a similarity also between the powers of the Shebait of a deity and those of the guardian of an infant. But the analogy really ends there. For purposes of limitation Act the idol does not enjoy any privilege and regarding contractual rights also the position of the idol is the same as that of any other artificial person. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to suits by minors or persons of unsound mind do not in terms at least apply to an idol; and to build up a law of procedure upon the fiction that the idol is an infant would lead to manifestly undesirable and anomalous consequences. “[59]
In this treatise the eminent author summed up the points as to juristic personality of idol, filing of suits, etc. as follows: [60]
- “(1) An idol is a juristic person in whom the title to the property of the endowment vests; but it is only in an ideal sense that the idol is the owner. It has to act through human agency and that agent is the Shebait, who is, in law, the person entitled to take proceedings on its behalf. The personality of the idol might, therefore, in one sense, be said to be merged in that of the Shebait.
- (2) Where, however, the Shebait refuses to act for the idol, or where the suit is to challenge the act of the Shebait himself as prejudicial to the interests of the idol, then there must be some other agency which must have the right to act for the idol. In such cases, the law accordingly recognizes a right in person interested in the endowment to take proceedings on behalf of the idol.
- (3) Where the endowment is a private one, the members of the family are the persons primarily interested in its upkeep and maintenance, and they are, therefore, entitled to act on behalf of the deity; but where the endowment is a public one, Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code prescribes a special procedure when the suit is against the trustee, and the reliefs claimed fall within that Section. Such a suit can be brought only in conformity with that Section and the rights of the members of the public, who are interested in the endowment as worshipers or otherwise, to institute proceedings on behalf of the idol are, to the extent abridged. Where, however, the suit does not fall within the ambit of Section 92, the right of the worshipers or persons interested in the endowment to vindicate the rights of the idol under the general law remains unaffected.
- (4) Once it is found that the plaintiffs, whether they be Shebaits or the founder or the members of his family, or the worshippers and members of the public interested in the endowment, are entitled to maintain the suit– and that is a matter of substantive law the further question whether an idol should be impleaded as a party to it or whether the action should be brought in its name is one purely of procedure. Such a suit is really the suit of the idol, instituted by persons whom the law recognises as competent to act for it, and the joinder of the idol is unnecessary. Indeed, it may even result in embarrassment. But where the matters in controversy in a suit would affect the interests of the deity, as for example when the trust is denied, or is sought to be altered, it is desirable that it should also be impleaded as a party.
- (5) Where the joinder of the idol is necessary or desirable, there is a difference of opinion as to whether the provisions of Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code could, by analogy, be applied to such a suit, and whether it is open to a person to constitute himself as the Next Friend of the idol and institute the suit on its behalf. The better opinion seems to be that the provisions of Order 32 cannot be extended to a suit on behalf the idol, as there is no real analogy between an infant and an idol, that a suit by a person other than the Shebait could be instituted on behalf of the idol only when the court grants permission therefore, and that such permission should, as a rule, be given only after hearing the persons interested.”
Ayodhya Case – Proceeded on the principle: ‘The court is the protector of all charities’.
As shown above, it is held by our Apex Court in M Siddiq Vs. Mahanth Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case) as under:
- When a Shebait is negligent in its duties or takes actions that are hostile to the deity or improperly alienated trust property or refuses to act for the benefit of the idol or where the Shebait’s actions are prejudicial to the interest of the idol, it becomes necessary to confer on a next friend the right to bring an action in law against the Shebait; and a worshipper has an ad hoc power of representation to protect the interest of the idol.
- The court can craft any number of reliefs, including the framing of a scheme. The question of relief is fundamentally contextual and must be framed by the court in light of the parties before it and the circumstances of each case.
It is clear that the our Apex Court has rendered the above edicts adopting the view that ‘the court is the protector of all charities’.
[1] See: Pramatha Nath Mullick Vs. Pradumna Kumar Mullick: AIR 1925 PC 139; Yogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commr. of IT Calcutta: AIR 1969 SC 1089; Sridhar Vs. Shri Jagan Nath Temple, AIR 1976 SC 1860. Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan Shegaon Vs. Ramrao Kashinath, reported in AIR 1954 Nag. 212.
[2] AIR 1968 SC 915
[3] Bimal Krishna Vs. Iswar Radha Balla: 1937 Cal 338: 41 Cal WN 728
[4] AIR 1976 SC 1860
[5] (1856) 6 Moors IA 393 PC
[6] AIR 1974 Del. 228
[7] 1978 GLR 661
[8] See: Yogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta: AIR 1969 SC 1089.
[9] Quoted in Sridhar Suar Vs. Jagannath Temple: AIR1976 SC 1860.
[10] Fifth Edition: Pages: 257, 265 & 271. See Chapter: Suit against Deity: Appointment of Next Friend
[11] Quoted in Chamelibai VallabhadasVs. Ramchandrajee, AIR 1965 MP 167.
[12] (1874-75) 2 Ind App 145 (PC).
[13] AIR 1969 SC 1089.
[14] AIR 1949 FC 218
[15] AIR 2002 SC 215
[16] Thayarammal Vs. Kanakammal: AIR 2005 SC 1588; Sk. Abdul Kayum Vs. Mulla Alibhai: AIR 1963 SC 309.
[17] Bai Dosabai Vs. Mathurdas Govinddas: AIR 1980 SC 1334.
[18] AIR 1928 All 454 (FB). Referred to in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.
[19] AIR 1961 All 73. Referred to in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. LaxminathjiMaharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.
[20] AIR 1917 PC 33. Referred to in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.
[21] Quoted with approval in Sridhar Vs. Sri Jagannath Temple, AIR 1976 SC 1860. Referred to in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.
[22] Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddi Vs. Kondaru Seshu Reddi: AIR 1967 SC 436, Bishwanath Vs. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji: AIR 1967 SC 1044; M Siddhiq, ,
[23] AIR 1967 SC 436.
[24] AIR 1925 PC 139: ILR 52 Cal 809
[25] Referred to in M Siddiq Vs. Mahanth Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case):2020-1 SCC 1.
[26] AIR 1967 SC 1044: (1967) 2 SCR 618
[27] Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddi Vs. Kondaru Seshu Reddi: AIR 1967 SC 436; Behari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabhji: AIR 1961 All 73
[28] Darshan Lal Vs. Shibji Maharaj Birajman, AIR 1923 All 120;
Kishore Joo Vs. Guman Behari Joo Deo: AIR 1978-All-1
[29] Behari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabhji: AIR 1961 All 73; Vikramadas vs. Daulat Ram (1956 S.C.R. 826). Parshvanath Jain Temple Vs. L. Rs of Prem Dass: 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 133; Jaganath vs. Thirthananda, AIR 1952 Orrisa 312; Sri Ram vs. Chandeshwar Prasad, I.L.R. 31 Pat.417; Lalta Prasad vs. Brahmanand, AIR 1953 All. 449; Kanakulamada Nadar vs. Pichakannu Ariyar, AIR 1954 Trav.-Cochin 254; Sapta Koteshwar vs. R.V. Kuttur, A.I.R. 1956 Bom.615). Sapta Kotheshar vs. R.V. Kuttur (AIR 1956 Bom. 615, Murti Shivji Maharaj Birajman Asthal Mohalla Vs Mathura Das Chela Naval Das Bairagi 2018 8 ADJ 843; 2018 130 AllLR 591, See also Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddi Vs. Kondaru Seshu Reddi, AIR 1967 SC 436.
[30] Ramchand Vs. Janki Ballabhji Maharaj, AIR 1970 SC 532; Referred to in Thakurji Maharaj Vs. Dankiya: AIR 1986 All 247.
[31] Thakur Dwara Sahawman v. Jivan das, 108 IC 270; Girishchandra Saw v. Upendra Nath Giridas, AIR 1931 Cal 771, Abdur Rahim v. Mohd. Barkat Ali, AIR 1928 PC 16. Pashupathi Nath Seal v. Pradyumna Kumar, 63 Cal 454; Maruthi v. Gopal Kumar, AIR 1932 Bom 305; Kazi Hassan v. Sagun Bal Krishna, 24 Bom 170; Venkatarama Ayyanagar v. Kasturi Ranga Ayyanagar, AIR 1917 Mad 112: Kisan Bhagwan v. Sri Maroti Sansthan, AIR 1947 Nag 233.
[32] Panchkari v. Amode Lal, AIR 1937 Cal 559;
Sashi Kumar Devi v. Dhirendra Kishor Roy, AIR 1941 Cal 248.
[33] 2020-1 SCC 1.
[34] 2020-1 SCC 1.
[35] AIR 1985 All 228
[36] AIR 1966 Pat 235
[37] AIR 1959 Manipur 42
[38] AIR 1952 Pat. 438
[39] AIR 1947 Cal 213
[40] AIR 1945 Cal 376
[41] AIR 1933 Cal 295
[42] AIR 1929 All 887
[43] AIR 1985 All 228
[44] AIR 1967 SC 1044
[45] AIR 1981 Cal 259.
[46] AIR 1967 SC 436
[47] AIR 1960 Cal 741
[48] AIR 1955 Cal 624
[49] AIR 1952 Pat 438;
[50] AIR 1942 Cal. 99
[51] AIR 1925 PC 139
[52] AIR 1981 Cal 259.
[53] Relied on: Sarat Chandra Vs. Dwarkanath, AIR 1931 Cal 555; Smt. Sushma Roy Vs. Atul Krishna Roy, AIR 1955 Cal 624; Sri Iswar Jew Thakur Vs. Gopinath Das, AIR 1960 Cal 741; Pramatha nath Mallick Vs. Pradyumna Mallick, AIR 1925 PC 139.
[54] AIR 1967 SC 1044
[55] 2018 8 ADJ 843; 2018 130 AllLR 591
[56] Fifth Edition: Pages: 257, 265 & 271.
[57] ILR 60 Cal 54: (AIR 1933 Cal 295)
[58] 37 Jnd App 147 (PC)
[59] Quoted in Chamelibai Vallabhadas Vs. Ramchandrajee, AIR 1965 MP 1167
[60] Quoted in Chamelibai Vallabhadas Vs. Ramchandrajee, AIR 1965 MP 167; Parshvanath Jain Temple Vs. L.Rs of Prem Dass: 2009-3-RCR(CIVIL) 133: 2008 TL Raj 1111
