1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.46 OF 1985 1. (a) Balkrishna Pandharinath Badve aged 41. (b) Manohar Vithal Badve,age 68 yrs. (Deleted) (c) Dattatraya Kashinath Badve,age 59 yrs. (Deleted) (d) Narhar Vasudeo Badve, age 62 yrs. (Deleted) All residents of Pandharpur, District Solapur Appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(d) in their personal capacity as Members of Badve Community and Devotees of God Shri Vithoba and His Pariwar Devatas, and in the capacity of Samasta Badve Samaj of Pandharpur. 2. (a) Shrikant Narayan Badve, age 44 yrs. (b) Prabhakar Haribhau Badve, age 40 (c) Vilas Krishnaji Badve, age 32 yrs. (d) Subhash Bharat Badve, age 30 yrs. (e) Vidhyadhar Haribhau Badve,age 32 yrs. All residents of Pandharpur, District Solapur. 2 Appellants Nos.2(a) to 2(e) in their personal capacity as Members of Badve Community and Devotees of God Shri Vithoba and His Pariwar Devatas and in their capacity as Chairman and members of Badve Committee. 3. (a) Giridhar Digambar Badve, age 59 yrs. (Deleted) (b) Vyankatesh Bharat Badve, age 49 yrs. (Deleted) (c) Gopal Tukaram Badve, age 31 yrs. (d) Ganesh Shankar Badve, age 50 yrs. (e) Sudhakar Pandurang Badve,age 39 yrs. (f) Prakash Krishnaji Badve,age 36 yrs. (g) Gopal Govind Badve,age 35 yrs. All residents of Pandharpur, District Solapur. Appellants Nos.3(a) to 3(g) in their personal capacity as members of Badve Community and Devotees of God Shri Vithoba and His Pariwar Devatas and in the capacity as Chairman and Members of Samasta ...APPELLANTS Badve Mandal. (Ori.Plaintiffs) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Shri Vithal Rukmini Temples Committee appointed under Sub-section 2 of Section 21 of Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973 through its members - 3 2-a) Shri Shashikant Gopalrao Page, Chairman 2-b) Ramdas Maharaj Jadhav, Member, 2-c) Sampatrao Ramchandra Jedhe, Member 2-d) Gahininath Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Ausekar, Member, 2-e) Vithal @ Madan Padmakar Haridas, Member, 2-f) Vasudeo Narayan Utpat, Member, 2-g) Vilas Bharat Badave, member. All c/o. Vitthal Rukmini Mandir, Samittee, Pandharpur, Dist.Solapur. (Notice to be served on Executive Officer, appointed under the Pandharpur Temples Act.) 3. Vasant Babaji Badve, age 58 years. Occupation Badvepana, residing at Badve Galli, Pandharpur, District ...RESPONDENTS Solapur. (Ori.Defendants) .......... S/Shri.B.P.Apte , Sr.Counsel with S.M.Mhamane & S.S.Patwardhan for Appellants. Shri.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Shri.A.R.Patil, A.G.P. & Shri.Shekhar Naphade, Special Sr.Counsel with (Smt.) Geeta Mulekar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 & 3. Shri.A.Y.Sakhare , Sr.Counsel with Shri.S.G.Surana for Respondents 2 & 2(a) to 2(g). 4 WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.52 OF 1985 (1) Pandurang Tukaram Utpat. died during pendency of suit, by his son Appellant No.7 Prakash Pandurang Utpat, for himself and on behalf of rest of the heirs of deceased Plaintiff No.1; (2) Babaji Dnyaneshwar Utpat; (3) Prabhakar Narayan Utpat; (4) Bhagwan Gopal Utpat; (5) Waman Ramchanra Utpat; (6) Bhanudas Pandharinath Utpat; (7) Prakash Pandurang Utpat; (8) Rangnath Pandurang Utpat; (9) Uday Bhagwat Utpat; (10) Ashok Keshav Utpat. Appellants on their own behalf as well as respresentatives of their respective Taximas of Utpats and also representatives of Samast Utpat Committee of Utpats. ...APPELLANTS (Original Plaintiffs) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Shri Vithal Rukmini Temples; Temporary Committee appointed by the State of Maharashtra under S. 21(2) of the said Act consisting of- 5 PRESENT COMMITTEE (1) Shri Shashikant Gopalrao Page, Chairman of the Committee Purnanda Society, Dongarsee Road, Banganga, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai 400 006 (2) Shri Ramdas Maharaj Jadhav/Kaikadi Member of the Committee Kaikadi Maharaja's Math, Nave Peth, Pandharpur. (3) Shri Sampatrao Ramchandra Jedhe, Member of the Committee At & Post : Ambvade, Tal.Bhor, District Pune. (4) Shri Gahininath Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Ausekar, Member of the Committee At & Post : Ausa, Tal. & Dist.Latur. (5) Vitthal @ Madan Padmakar Haridas, Member of the Committee Kalyan Wada, Haridas Ves Pandharpur, Dist.Solapur. (6) Shri Vasudeo Narayan Utpat, Member of the Committee Radhanarayan, Paschimdwar Pandharpur, Dist.Solapur. (7) Shri Vilas Bharat Badave, Member of the Committee Utpat Galli, Pandharpur, District Solapur. 3. The Executive Officer under the said Act who is Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur. ...RESPONDENTS (Original Defendants) 6 .......... Shri.Abhay Abhyankar, Sr.Counsel with Shri.R.S.Patil for Appellants. Shri.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Shri.A.R.Patil, A.G.P. & Shri.Shekhar Naphade, Special Sr.Counsel with (Smt.) Geeta Mulekar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 & 3. Shri.A.Y.Sakhare , Sr.Counsel with Shri.S.G.Surana for Respondents 2 & 2(1) to 2(7). WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.442 OF 1985 Shri Jagannath Gangaram Pujari, Aged 75 years, Occupation Pujari Sevadhari of Famous Vithoba Temple, Pandharpur, Residing at 3000 Near Vegetable Market, Pandharpur, Since deceased by his Heirs and Legal representatives: Shri Prakash Jagannath Pujari, Age 38 years, on his behalf and on Behalf of all Pujaris of the said Temple Residing at 3000, Near Vegetable Market, Pandharpur, District : Solapur. ...APPELLANT (Ori.Plaintiff No.2) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Shri Vithal Rukmini Temple, Temporary Committee, Consisting of- (1) Shri Shashikant Gopalrao Page, 7 Chairman of the Committee (2) Shri Ramdas Maharaj Jadhav/Kaikadi Member (3) Shri Sampatrao Ramchandra Jedhe, Member (4) Shri Gahininath Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Ausekar, Member (5) Vitthal @ Madan Padmakar Haridas Member (6) Shri Vasudeo Narayan Utpat, Member (7) Shri Vilas Bharat Badave, Member All C/o Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samittee Pandharpur, District: Solapur. 3. The Executive Officer under the said Act who is Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur. ...RESPONDENTS Ori.Defendants) WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.443 OF 1985 1.Sakharam Vithal Paricharak (Since deceased by his heirs) 2.Ramchandra Shankar Paricharak (Since deceased by his heirs) Madhav Ramchandra Paricharak, Res.at 17/22, Pandharpur, Representing all Paricharaks, doing the religious duties & enjoying the rights and duties of Paricharaks in Vithoba ...APPELLANTS Temple in Pandharpur. (Ori.Plaintiffs) Versus 8 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Shri Vithal Rukmini Temple, Committee, Through its Members: 2/1) Shri Shashikant Gopalrao Page, Chairman, 2/2) Shri Ramdas Maharaj Jadhav, Member 2/3) Shri Sampatrao Ramchandra Jedhe, Member 2/4) Shri Gahininath Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Ausekar, Member 2/5) Vitthal @ Madan Padmakar Haridas Member 2/6) Shri Vasudeo Narayan Utpat, Member 2/7) Shri Vilas Bharat Badave, Member All C/o Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samittee Pandharpur, District: Solapur. 3. The Executive Officer, appointed under the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973, who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur Division, Pandharpur, ...RESPONDENTS Dist: Solapur. (Ori.Defendants) WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.444 OF 1985 1.Shri Haribhau Ramchandra Diwate, aged 56 years, occupation Sevadhari, Resident of 2712, Umade Galli, Pandharpur (since Deceased). 9 2.Shri Vishnu Narayan Diwate, aged 55 years, Occupation – Sevadhari, Resident of Mendhe Galli, Pandharpur. Died on 3/5/2004 : Through Legal Representative: Shri Ramesh Haribhau Diwate, Adult, On their own behalf and also on behalf of all Diwates doing the religious duties and enjoying the rights of Diwates in the famous temple of Vithoba in ...APPELLANTS Pandharpur. (Ori.Plaintiffs) Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra, 2.Shri Vithal-Rukmini Temples, Temporary Committee, consisting of: 2/1) Shri Shashikant Gopalrao Page, Chairman, 2/2) Shri Ramdas Maharaj Jadhav, Member 2/3) Shri Sampatrao Ramchandra Jedhe, Member 2/4) Shri Gahininath Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Ausekar, Member 2/5 )Vitthal @ Madan Padmakar Haridas Member 2/6) Shri Vasudeo Narayan Utpat, Member 2/7) Shri Vilas Bharat Badave, Member All C/o Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samittee Pandharpur, District: Solapur. 3. The Executive Officer, appointed under 10 the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973, who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur Division, Pandharpur, ...RESPONDENTS Dist: Solapur. (Ori.Defendants) WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.445 OF 1985 1.Gopal Narhar Dingare, 2.Krishnaji Digambar Dingare, Both Appellants died : Through their Legal representatives : Shri Balkrishna Govind Dingare, Occupation Sevadhari, Resident of Chinchapur, Taluka Pandharpur, On his own behalf as well as on behalf of all Dingares doing the religious duties and enjoying the rights and privileges of Dingares in the famous Vithoba Temple, ...APPELLANTS Pandharpur, District : Solapur. (Ori.Plaintiffs) Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Shri Vithal Rukmini Temple, Committee, Through its Members: 2/1) Shri Shashikant Gopalrao Page, Chairman, 2/2) Shri Ramdas Maharaj Jadhav, Member 2/3) Shri Sampatrao Ramchandra Jedhe, Member 11 2/4) Shri Gahininath Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Ausekar, Member 2/5) Vitthal @ Madan Padmakar Haridas Member 2/6) Shri Vasudeo Narayan Utpat, Member 2/7) Shri Vilas Bharat Badave, Member All C/o Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samittee Pandharpur, District: Solapur. 3. The Executive Officer, appointed under the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973, who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur Division, Pandharpur, ...RESPONDENTS Dist: Solapur. (Ori.Defendants) WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.446 OF 1985 1.Bharat Digambar Dange, age 27 years, Occu: Sevadhari, residing at 909, Govindpura, Pandharpur. 2.Digambar Gangaram Dange, age 62 years, Occu: Sevadhari, residing at 909, Govindpura, Pandharpur. On their own behalf and also on behalf of other Danges doing religious duties and enjoying the rights of Danges in ...APPELLANTS the Vithoba Temple, Pandharpur. (Ori.Plaintiffs) Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra, 12 2.Shri Vithal-Rukmini Temples, Committee, Through its Members: 2/1) Shri Shashikant Gopalrao Page, Chairman, 2/2) Shri Ramdas Maharaj Jadhav, Member 2/3) Shri Sampatrao Ramchandra Jedhe, Member 2/4) Shri Gahininath Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Ausekar, Member 2/5) Vitthal @ Madan Padmakar Haridas Member 2/6) Shri Vasudeo Narayan Utpat, Member 2/7) Shri Vilas Bharat Badave, Member All C/o Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samittee Pandharpur, District: Solapur. 3. The Executive Officer, appointed under the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973, who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur Division, Pandharpur, ...RESPONDENTS Dist: Solapur. (Ori.Defendants) WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.447 OF 1985 1)Ramchandra Krishnaji Benare, age 77 2)Trimbak Vasudeo Benare, age 51 Both Appellants died : Through their 13 Legal respresentatives : Shri Gopal Ramchandra Benare-Kale Resident of 1788 Mendhe Galli, Pandharpur, District :Solapur. On their own behalf and also on behalf of all Benares doing religious duties and enjoying rights and privileges of Benares in Vithoba Temple, ...APPELLANTS Pandharpur. (Ori.Plaintiffs) Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra, 2.Shri Vithal-Rukmini Temples, Committee, Through its Members: 2/1)Shri Shashikant Gopalrao Page, Chairman, 2/2) Shri Ramdas Maharaj Jadhav, Member 2/3) Shri Sampatrao Ramchandra Jedhe, Member 2/4) Shri Gahininath Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Ausekar, Member 2/5) Vitthal @ Madan Padmakar Haridas Member 2/6) Shri Vasudeo Narayan Utpat, Member 2/7) Shri Vilas Bharat Badave, Member All C/o Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samittee Pandharpur, District: Solapur. 3. The Executive Officer, appointed under the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973, 14 who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur Division, Pandharpur, ...RESPONDENTS Dist: Solapur. (Ori.Defendants) WITH SECOND APPEAL NO.448 OF 1985 1.Pandurang Ganesh Haridas, age 48, Occupation a Sevadhari, residing at 1904, Near Bablyacha Nal, Pandharpur. 2.Trimbak Digambar Haridas, age 74 years, Occupation-Sevadhari, residing at 1943, Pandharpur. On their own behalf and also on behalf of other Haridas doing religious duties and enjoying rights of Haridas in the ...APPELLANTS Vithoba Temple, Pandharpur. (Ori.Plaintiffs) Versus 1.The State of Maharashtra, 2.Shri Vithal-Rukmini Temples, Committee, Through its Members: 2/1) Shri Shashikant Gopalrao Page, Chairman, 2/2) Shri Ramdas Maharaj Jadhav, Member 2/3) Shri Sampatrao Ramchandra Jedhe, Member 2/4) Shri Gahininath Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Ausekar, Member 15 2/5) Vitthal @ Madan Padmakar Haridas, Member 2/6) Shri Vasudeo Narayan Utpat, Member 2/7) Shri Vilas Bharat Badave, Member All C/o Vitthal Rukmini Mandir Samittee Pandharpur, District: Solapur. 3. The Executive Officer, appointed under the Pandharpur Temples Act, 1973, who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur Division, Pandharpur, ...RESPONDENTS Dist: Solapur. (Ori.Defendants) ........... Shri.Vinit B.Naik for Appellants. Shri.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Shri.A.R.Patil, A.G.P. & Shri.Shekhar Naphade, Special Sr.Counsel with (Smt.) Geeta Mulekar, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 3. Shri.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Counsel with Shri. S.G.Surana for Respondents 2 & 2(1) to 2(7). .......... CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. NOVEMBER 13, 2006. JUDGMENT : 1. All these Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this Common Judgment, as the issues raised therein are 16 overlapping and common. 2. These Second Appeals take exception to the Judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, which in turn, has confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the Suit for declaration and injunction preferred by the Appellants. In all, nine separate Suits came to be filed. The Appellants before this Court are the three priestly classes such as Badves, Sevadharis and Utpats, who are associated with the ancient temples of Vithoba and Rukmini, popularly known as `Pandharpur Temples'. The Badves and Sevadharis are associated with the Vitthal Temple, whereas Utpats are associated with Rukmini temple. 3. Pandharpur town is one of the revered pilgrimage in Solapur district of State of Maharashtra. Thousands of people from far and near visit Pandharpur round the year. It is the most popular place of pilgrimage in the Deccan and greatest centre of attraction for the multitudes of devotees. It is located on the western banks of 17 the river Bhimarathi, also known as Chandrabhaga. Pandharpur is known as Bhu­Vaikuntha, the spiritual world on the earth. It is also called Dakshina Dwarka, the Dwarka of the South. There are two principal temples in Pandharpur known as Vitthal Temple and Rukmini Temple. Shri Vitthal is a form of Lord Krishna; the name Vithoba means father Vitthala. Vitthala is said to have been derived from the word Vishnu in Kannada. The deity is also called Vithoba or Panduranga. Panduranga is sanskritised form of Pandarga, the old name of Pandharpur. As the legend goes Pundalika, a saint was closely associated with this shrine, and hence this shrine is also known as Pundarika Pura. Vithoba's concert is Rukhumai or Rukmini. The Vitthal of Pandharpur is undoubtedly the premier deity of Maharashtra. Warkari Sampradaya has developed around the temples of Pandharpur who preach in Bhakti cult, which is part of Bhagvad Dharma. Singnificantly, most enlightened minds of Maharashtra have dedicated to devotion or Bhakti of Vitthala. The Vitthala cult has attracted persons belonging to various castes and communities 18 from various professions and callings and all walks of life. The Pandhapur Temples are indisputably unique in several respects. 4. The above named three priestly classes assert that they have certain hereditary rights and privileges with regard to the affairs of the said temples at Pandharpur. As complaints were received by Government of Maharashtra regarding the mismanagement of the Vitthal Temple, the Rukmini Temple, the Parivar Devatas and Vitthal­Rukmini Devasthan Committee, the Government vide Notification dated October 21, 1968 appointed a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1982, consisting of Shri B.D. Nadkarni, District Judge (Retired) to inquire into and report to the State Government on the alleged mismanagement of the said Public Trust and other related matters. The Commission, after conducting extensive inquiry, submitted a well documented report dated January 31, 1970, to the State Government on 2nd February 1970. The said Report has come on record as Exhibit 145. The said Report is founded on information discerned from several documents as well as oral evidence. The 19 documents include gazettes issued by the appropriate authority from time to time as well as decisions in judicial proceedings between three priestly classes and the Devasthan Committee and others ensued from time to time. The report has considered relevant matters to record its opinion on several issues such as origin of the temples and idols, religious tenets of Shri Vithoba and the Warkari Cult, Pujas and Upchars – Nitya and Naimittik: together with the role of Badves, Sevadharis and Utpats, litigations between Badves and Sevadharis and between Badves Devasthan Committee and others as well as the properties and their management and the management of the temples and sources of income of Badves, Utpats and Sevadharis. The report has also noticed several complaints recorded against three priestly classes and the Vitthal­Rukmini Devasthan Committee, registered Public Trust under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as `the B.P.T. Act'). The report also considers the claim of the three priestly classes of being religious denomination. After indepth scrutiny of all the materials and evidence placed before it, the Commission recommended to the 20 Government that for better management of the temples and the properties of the temples and in particular, in the interest of the multitude of devotees regularly visiting the temples from far off distances throughout the Country, it was necessary to bring about changes as noted in the Report. The Commission recommended the State Government to abolish all the hereditary rights and privileges of ministrants and priestly classes functioning in the temples of Vitthal and Rukmini at Pandharpur, for the acquisition of such rights and privileges and for the vesting thereof in a Committee established under the Act for the purpose. The Commission has also recommended to payment of compensation to the respective priestly classes for the abolition of the hereditary rights and the privileges enjoyed by them. It may be useful to advert to the summary of the findings of the Commission on the points referred for inquiry. The same reads thus: “CHAPTER XVII SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS ON THE POINTS REFERRED FOR ENQUIRY Mismanagement acts and omissions amounting to 21 1. Having discussed in the earlier Chapters about the various complaints and the evidence regarding them, the position and privileges claimed by the priestly classes and the obligations and powers vested in the State under the Constitution, before formulating the recommendations it is necessary and desirable to summarise the findings on the specific terms referred to this Commission for Report in para.2 of the Notification. The findings of the Commission on the points are :- (a) (i) There is mismanagement of both Vithoba and Rukmini trusts in that the objects for which the trusts exist are not fulfilled. As already pointed out mismanagement is not defined. But failure to discharge the duties and obligations even implicit in the management will amount to mismanagement. Several acts of commission and omission which singly or together will amount to mismanagement will be set forth presently. For the cult propagated by the temples which is one of Bhakti-marga which is eloquently expressed by the Warkari Sampradaya- regular visit to Pandharpur and Darshan of the deity are of the utmost importance among other things and, therefore, lacs of pilgrims visit Pandharpur, several thousands of them trudging on foot over hundreds of miles. The priestly classes exploit the situation that constructional short-comings of the temples cannot permit Darshan to all and, therefore, resort to mal-practice such as giving preference and facilities for Darshan only to those who pay and harass those who do not pay, not sparing them even from physical violence. (ii) Constant demand of Dakshina at various points by various people belonging to the priestly classes from the devotees with harsh words if they fail to comply leave to the devotees little spiritual concentration in quest of which the devotees visit. (iii) Constant quarrels and litigations inter­se between priestly classes tend to reflect on the peaceful atmosphere. The attempt of one class viz. Badves to appropriate all the offerings and to prevent others from soliciting for Dakshina which provide the only remuneration for the services rendered by them, when resisted, has led the continuous litigations and the demands have resulted in harassment of the devotees by those who have no other source of livelihood like the Badves. 22 (iv) No adequate arrangements or facilities are provided for the devotees who have to wait in queues, for hours together during the Ashadhi and other fairs though on some occasions waiting involved is 8 to 10 hours. It was the duty of the Badves who manage and take almost the entire income to provide these facilities. On the contrary, time for Darshan is curtailed by untimely pujas during which the doors are closed and for such pujas there being no fixed rates they prove very productive to the Badves. (v) Accounts are not kept in a proper mode and such checks and safeguards as were provided under the Scheme framed by the High Court are attempted to be circumvented by creating new committees, such as Samasta Badve Mandal, and Badve Samaj both representing the identical community which is properly and effectively represented by the Badves Committee appointed under the Scheme. (vi) Though there is prima facie evidence of endowments they are not accounted for both by the Badves and Utpats as well as Sevadharis. Encroachments on parts of the temple property appear to have been allowed and connived at in the City Survey Enquiry by conceding to the claims and even there was an adverse claim by one of the Badves in respect of a room before the Commission. (vii) The attitude of the management is such that in some matters no differentiation is made between what should be credited to the Devasthan and what should go to the Badves and Utpats as for instance copyright of photographs of Vithoba and Rukmini, the sale proceeds of which are appropriated by the individuals. So also rents or fees recovered by letting out halls in the temples and spaces are also appropriated by the Badves though none of these fall under the head of offerings to which they are entitled under the scheme. Utpats do not have any stable management and even their accounts have been noticed to be incomplete and unsatisfactory. Though Rukmini trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 instances have been noticed in the course of the evidence where the provisions of the Act have not been respected or observed in spite of warnings and action by the Charity Commissioner. It is, therefore, clear that 23 there is mismanagement of both Vithoba and Rukmini Trusts. Though Pariwar Devatas really form part and parcel of the Vithoba Trust, the Badves have got it registered as separate trust for reasons which are obvious from what is stated above. So far as the Devasthan Committee Trust is concerned there are no allegations of any mismanagement and the tussle between this Trust and the Badve Committee has been dealt with sufficiently in the earlier part of the Report. In fact there will be no occasion for continuance of this trust as a separate entity if the recommendations made by this Commission are accepted and put into effect. Sources of income (b) There are no stable sources of income both for Vithoba and Rukmini trusts except the original cash allowance of Rs.3,000 granted by the Raja of Satara to Vithoba and Rukmini which is now increased to Rs.10,000 and is the only property under control of the Devasthan Committee Trust. Though under the scheme framed by the High Court for the Vithoba trust provision is made that offerings of cash exceeding Rs.500 should go to the Vithoba fund, since the date of the Scheme which was 1896 there is only one such offering. There is a small negligible amount of rent for a small building know as Terkarwada endowed to the deity and some fees recovered from vendors of flowers sitting inside- all these amounting to about Rs.500 a year. In the case of Rukmini temple prior to the decision in appeal No.62/60 whole of the income from offerings used to be taken by the Utpats. But after the decision half of it is directed to be spent for expenses and the maintenance of the temple allowing the other half to be appropriated by them. So except the cash allowance referred to in favour of Vithoba and Rukmini there are no other mentionable sources of stable income. The result is that for repair and renovation of the temples or improvements of surroundings both Vithoba and Rukmini trusts have to seek public charity- indeed a sad situation for temples of such eminence in Maharashtra. It may be observed here that all offerings made in cash and kind to the deities and income from pujas and upchars offered to the deities, should really belong to the deities, if not the whole, at least a part leaving the balance for the maintenance of services including of those who are engaged in them. But unfortunately either by reason of judicial decisions or by custom and usage no part of what 24 should really belong to the deity for utilisation for the benefit of the real beneficiaries- the devotees remains. The Scheme judgment recognised the right partly upon the custom and usage enjoyed by the Badves which in turn was relied upon by the then Suzerain Power to recognise that right. With respect the Commissioner feels that a custom which has the effect of leaving the trust indigent is an unreasonable custom. The Commission cannot help referring to the quotation from the Halsbury's Laws of England appearing at page 65 of the Report of the Committee of enquiry into the affairs of Dargah Khwaja Saheb (Ajmer) headed by Mr.Justice Ghulam Hasan of the Allahabad High Court. The