IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2006 SHRI SADANAND GANGADHAR HABBU ..APPLICANT V/S SHRI. SIDDHESHWAR DEOSTHAN PANCH COMMITTEE, SOLAPUR & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS MR. A.V. ANTURKAR, ADVOCATE I/BY SUGANDH B. DESHMUKH, FOR THE APPLICANT. MR. G.S. GODBOLE, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 7. MR. A.M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 19. THAKORDAS & MADGAONKAR, ADVOCATES, FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 9, 14, 16 & 17. MS. S.P. MANCHEKAR AGP GOVT. PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 6 & 18. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 163 OF 2006 CHANDRASHEKHAR M. HABBU & ORS. ..APPLICANTS V/S SHRI. SIDHESHWAR DEVASTHAN PANCH COMMITTEE, SOLAPUR, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS MR. G.H. KELUSKAR, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPLICANTS. MR. G.S. GODBOLE, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 7. : 2 : MR. A.M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 16. THAKORDAS & MADGAONKAR, ADVOCATES, FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 9 TO 12. WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 191 OF 2006 RAMAPPA R. HABBU & ORS. ..APPLICANTS V/S SHRI. SIDHESHWAR DEVASTHAN PANCH COMMITTEE, SOLAPUR, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS MR. VAIBHAV SUGDARE, ADVOCATE, I/BY M/S. THAKORDAS & MADGAONKAR, FOR THE APPLICANTS. MR.G.S. GODBOLE, ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 7. MR. A.M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 17. MS. S.P. MANCHEKAR AGP FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 15 & 16. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 30TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 30TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 30TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In all these matters the respondent no. 1 is the panch committee of the trust running the management of Shri Sidheshwar : 3 : Devasthan or Temple situated at Solapur. The respondent no. 2 to 7 are the trustees or members of the panch committee. The respondent nos. 1 to 7 were the original applicants before the Charity Commissioner. The revision applicants, who were the original respondents before the Charity Commissioner, are the pujaries or priests for performing pujas, archanas etc. The dispute arose between the management and the priests, in respect of the temple. In the year 1939 the then priests, who were the predecessors of the present priests, claimed right and title of the management as well as the right to collect all the offerings, presents, donations etc. made by the devotees. That led the trust to file Civil Suit No. 731 of 1939. The suit was finally disposed of on 7th July 1943 as per the compromise and the compromise decree came to be passed. There is dispute about the interpretation of certain terms of that compromise. According to the priests they are entitled to receive all the offerings made in cash and for that purpose they had installed cash/gift boxes in and around the main temple and small lingas in the precincts of the temple. According to the management, the priests are entitled to receive the offerings made in cash openly in front of the deity i.e. the main temple of Shri Sidheshwar but they are not entitled to place cash or gift box in front of the main temple or : 4 : in front of the small lingas or any place within the precincts of the temple. It is contended by the management that they have to run several charitable institutions out of the offerings made by the devotees of the temple. This includes educational institutions like school, colleges and hospitals and for that purpose the management decided to put their cash and gift boxes. The management approached the Charity Commissioner and prayed for several reliefs, including injunction to restrain the priests from installing any cash or gift boxes in the temple precincts. 2. The application was contested by the priests. According to them, the terms of the compromise decree do not prohibit them from putting any cash box and they are entitled to receive whatever the cash offerings are made to the deity and to the small lingas within the precincts, as they have hereditory rights and for the purpose of collecting such offerings they are also entitled to install cash or gift boxes in front of the temple as well as small lings and other parts within the precincts of the temple. 3. After hearing the parties the learned Joint Charity Commissioner passed the order dated 23rd July 2003 under section 41 E of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and : 5 : restrained the priests from collecting the amount by installing gift boxes/danpetya at any places i.e. inside or outside of Gabhara or in the premises of the temple of Shree Sidheshwar Deostan. They were also restrained from collecting or recovering more amount than Rs. 1.25 paise for abhishek, marriages and other religious ceremonies. They were also restrained from collecting any amount in the name of abhishek, marriage and other ceremonies without receipts issued by the trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner also clarified that the trustees or management may install gift boxes at any accessible and visible places in the temple premises in the interest of the trust. This order passed by the Charity Commissioner came to be challenged by the priests in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1103 of 2003. That Appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 4-3-2004. All these 3 Revision Applications are filed by the different priests challenging the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissoiner as well as by the District Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties in all the 3 matters. Perused the relevant documents and impugned judgment. Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel, vehemently contended that the courts below had utterly failed to : 6 : interpret the compromise decree and particularly clause 2 of the same. On the other hand Mr. Godbole, learned counsel for the management vehemently contended that the management has to run charitable hospital, educational institutions like schools, colleges and it requires huge funds. According to him, the devotees out of devotion make the offerings to the deity. If the devotees want to make donations or offerings for the purpose, benefit or personal use of the priests for performing religious ceremonies, they put the amount in cash before the deity or in thali (plate). But when they intend to offer cash or any other valuable article for diety they either put the cash or gift article in a box or they deposit the money with the office of the management. It is contented that the compromise decree nowhere provides that the priests shall be entitled to place the cash or gift boxes in front of the deity or within the precincts of the temple and therefore the courts below have rightly interpreted clause 2 of the decree and have rightly held that the priests are not entitled to instal or place any cash box or gift box within the precincts of the temple. Mr. Godbole vehemently contended that the whole case is based on intepretation of the compromise decree and both the courts below have given concurrent finding and according to him the scope of the revision application is very limited and in the present : 7 : case the courts below have minutely considered the compromise decree and it cannot be said that there is any illegality or irregularity in the approach of the court. Mr. Anturkar, learned counsel for the priests contended that when the courts below have clearly committed error in interpretation of clause 2 of the compromise decree this court can interfere by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 5. In the light of the argument advanced by both the learned counsel it will be necessary to interpret the compromise decree and particularly clause 2 and clause 7. If the whole compromise decree and the plaint are read, it becomes clear that in prayer clauses (1) and (3), the pujaries or priests of the said temple claimed exclusive right of the management as well as right and title over the property of the temple as well as exclusive right over the offerings and gifts made by the devotees in the temple. In view of the compromise, it was admitted that the panch committee or the trustees would have exclusive right over the main Shree Siddheshwar Temple as well as other small temple/lingas and would have also exclusive title over the moveable and immoveable properties as well as right of the management over the said temple. The defendants in that : 8 : suit, who were the priests representing the different branches of the priests family, were conceded right of performing poojas and archas etc. As per clause 2 of the compromise decree the defendant nos. 1 to 4 therein had hereditory and customary right of performing poojas and of accepting the cash offerings made before the main temple and if any gifts or offerings made in kind was worth Rs. 25/- or more the management would have right over the property but if any such offering was made in cash and worth less than Rs. 25/-, it could be utilised or appropriated by the priests. It also provides that if some devotees makes certain offerings to the management for the purpose of ’Naivedya’ or ’Nandadeep’ the management would hand over the same to the priests, who would appropriate and use the same as per the desire of the devotees. Para 2 clearly shows that "if any cash was placed before the deity by the devotees the priests would be entitled to the same." In fact even today the management has no objection to the said clause. The courts below have held that the cash placed before the deity means the cash placed before the deity openly and not the cash put in the cash box or gift box which may be installed within the precincts or the campus of the temple. The courts below held that the management of the trust have to discharge several duties and responsibilities and have to run educational : 9 : institutions like schools and colleges and that requires a lot of money and these requirements can be met from the donations given by the devotees visiting the temple. In view of this, the courts below held that the management is entitled to place and install the cash or gift boxes in front of the main temple as well as in any other part of the temple so that the devotees could put their offerings in the said boxes. However, as and when such cash offering is made by the devotees by placing the amount openly in front of the deity the priests are entitled to receive the same. The courts below held that clause 2 of the compromise decree nowhere provides specifically that the priests are also entitled to place cash or gift boxes anywhere in the temple. In fact this clause clearly shows that the amount which would be placed by the devotees before the deity could be taken away and appropriated by the priests. In view of this, the courts below came to the conclusion that only if the cash offerings is openly made, the priests can claim the right over the same. If the devotees desire that the offering be utilised and approprieated by the priests, they can place the same openly in front of the deity but if they do not desire that the amount be appropriated by the priests for their personal use, they may put the same in any cash box and the cash put in the box would be available to the management only. 6. Mr. Anturkar placed reliance upon Arulmighu : 10 : Devanatha Swamy Temple v/s Neelamega Bhattachariar - AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3726. In that case the temple authorities intended to instal Hundial or the cash boxes in the temple precincts, which would adversely affect the right of the Archak or the pujaries to the offerings. It was held that under the scheme framed for administration, right was given to the Archak to appropriate for his own use all cash offerings made in open cups and plates except those made for specific purpose. In view of the peculiar scheme framed in that matter it was held that offerings could not have been collected in the hundias by the management. In my considered opinion that authority does not come to the rescue of the priests, in the present case as no such special scheme has been framed whereby the right has been given to the priests to take all cash offerings. The priests are governed by the compromise decree and as per para 2, only the cash, which is placed before the deity, can be appropriated and it does not specifically provide that all the cash offerings made within the temple precincts will be appropriated and used by the priests. Mr. Anturkar also contended that when the terms of the settlment have been arrived at in the form of compromise decree, they cannot be altered or modified without the consent of the parties. He also relied upon Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Kidarsons : 11 : Industries (P) Ltd. - (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 531. There can be no dispute about this legal proposition. However in the present case the courts below have not mofified the terms of the compromise arrived at by the parties in the suit of 1939. The courts below have only interpreted the compromise decree and particularly clause 2. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and clause 2 of the compromise decree, I am not in a position to accept that the courts below have committed any error, illegality or irregularity in interpreting the compromise decree. 7. Clause 7 of the compromise decree specifically provide that pujaries or priests are entitled to receive the amount of Re. 1-4 annas for each function of marriage or any other ceremonial function. The courts below have held that this included the abhishek, marriage and other religious ceremonies and relying on the terms of clause 7 of the compromise decree the learned Charity Commissioner restrained the priests from collecting or recovering more than Rs. 1.25ps. for abhishek, marriage or for any other religious ceremony. They were also restrained from collecting any amount in the name of ceremonies without receipts being issued by the trust. The Joint Charity Commissioner passed the impugned order by virtue of the powers given under : 12 : section 41(e) of the Bombay Public Trust Act. It is important note that the Joint Charity Commissioner passsed the order in the interest of deity, its management, the general public interest and in the interest of devotees who make huge offerings in the temple. The learned trial court also considered all the aspects while dimissing the Appeal. I do not find any substance in the Revision Application. 8. In the result, all the 3 Revision Applications stand dismissed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the revision applicant/priests makes a request that status quo in the form of order passed by this court on 30-11-2005 may be continued for some time as they intend to challenge the order of this court. Therefore, the order passed by this court on 30-11-2005, particularly in para 3, shall remain in operation for a further period of 8 weeks. However it will not be applicable to the cash boxes placed there for donation for the Cancer Hospital or Talav Sudharan Committee. (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J)