Case: Ugamsingh &amp; Mishrimal Vs. Kesrimal &amp; Ors,

1. This Appeal by Special Leave of this Court is against the judgment of a single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the judgment and decree of the District Court with certain varitions2. Respondents 1 to 9 filed a suit against the Appellants and Respondents 10 and 11 and two others for a declaration that they have been carrying on and are entitled to carry on Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan etc. of the idol of Adeshwarji, the first Tirthankar in the Temple named after him at Paroli without interference according to the tenets observed by the Digambari Sect of the Jain religion. The said Temple of Shri Adeshwarji is said to have been in existence for 200 years while the Respondents aver that the inscriptions on it bear Vikram Samvat 1510 (1454 AD)3. The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Temple was constructed and the idol was consecrated according to and by the followers of the tenets of the Digamber Sect; that the Plaintiffs and the other followers of the Digamber Sect have been performing Darshan Prakshal and Poojan of the said idol according to their tenets ever since the Temple was founded; that on the 23rd of December 1949 the Defendants attempted to convert the said idol into the idol of Swetambari Sect by putting Chakshus (artificial eyes) thereon, but were prevented from doing so by a strong opposition of the followers of the Digamber Sect; that thereafter some temporary arrangements were made between the followers of the two Sects who agreed to maintain the status quo until a decision of the Civil Court on the rival claims of the parties was given; that in disregard of the temporary settlement and without getting the rights in the Temple adjudicated upon by the Civil Court, the Defendants made arrangements to put Dhwajadand and Kalash on the said Temple according to their tenets, and that they also further learnt that the Defendants were intending to enclose the said idol by putting up doors and locks with the object of interfering with and obstructing the free exercise by the Digamberies of their unfettered rights to perform Poojan, Prakshal and worship of the said idol according to their tenets. On these allegations it was prayed that the Defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from (i) erecting the Dhwajadand and putting up Kalash, (ii) enclosing the idols by putting up doors and locks; or in any manner altering the nature and shape and appearance of the idols installed in the said Temple; or directly or indirectly doing any act or thing which may have the effect of wounding the religious susceptibilities and sentiments of the followers of the Digambri Jain Sect and (iii) from interfering with the free and unfettered rights of the Plaintiffs of performing Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan and other rites according to the tenets of Digamber Jain Sect4. The Defendants did not deny that they intended to put the Netras but said that they did so because the Netras which the idol had even before the said date having been damaged and fallen out, new Netras were put up. They further claimed that since its existence the temple of Adeshwarji has been in the possession of the Defendants who have been in exclusive management of the Temple and its property; that the plaintiffs never used to do Poojan or Prakshal in the Temple nor had they any right thereto, and that when in 1949 there was a dispute between the parties a temporary arrangement was made but the Defendants did not admit any right of Plaintiffs to Poojan. It was further averred that the said idol and the Temple is in all respects Jain Swetambari Sect, that it has been so used and described in all the historical records from time to time and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the religious rights of the parties nor is it a dispute of the civil nature5. On these pleadings issues were framed on 3-12-55 but subsequently after the evidence in the case was recorded and having regard thereto fresh issues were framed in substitution of the former ones on 4-6-57 but thereafter no evidence was led by either party. The controversy between the parties as is evident from these issues was, as to which Sect of Jains the main idol of Adeshwarji belongs, which Sect has constructed the Upper portion of the idols referred to and the nearby portion of the temple; under what tenets have the followers of the Sects, Digamber and Swetamber, performed Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan of the idol of the temple referred to and can only Sect change these previous tenets; whether the Netras (artificial eyes) of the idol, Bhujband and Dhwajadand over the temple exited before and if not, can they be placed and inserted now; and whether the Temple is in possesion and under the management of the Defendants alone from the time it came into existence6. The Civil Judge of Bhilwara decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs, against which the Defendants appealed. The District Judge, however, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that in his opinion no question of any right to property or office was involved in the suit and consequently the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with costs7. On an appeal from this judgment the High Court allowed the Appeal holding that inasmuch as the allegations in the plaint relate to an assertion of a right of worship and an interference with that right, a dispute of civil nature arises which is clearly cognizable by a Civil Court. In this view, the case was remanded to the District Judge for determining the appeal on merits. Leave to Appeal was also refused8. After remand the District Judge confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court with certain variations. Against this judgment the Appellants filed an appeal to the High Court and the Respondents filed cross objections. The High Court affirmed the judgment of the District Judge except for that part of the decree directing the Appellants to keep open the doors of the Temple between 8.30 and 9.30 each morning to enable the Respondents to worship without interference, which, however, was modified to enable Respondents to Worship at the Temple between 6 a. m. to 9 a. m. every morning, during which time the Temple was not to be locked. It further directed that if the Swetamberies wanted also to worship during this period without disturbing the Digamberies they had the liberty to do so.

Reasoning: It is clear therefore that a right to worship is a civil right, interference with which raises a dispute of a civil nature though as noticed earlier disputes which are in respect of rituals or ceremonies alone cannot be adjudicated by Civil Courts if they are not essentially connected with Civil rights of an individual or a sect on behalf of whom a suit is filed. In our view the contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellant to the maintainability of the suit is not well foundedThe Judgment in our view is not based solely on the result of personal inspection made by the Trial Judge, which inspection was for the purposes of understanding the evidence in the case and has been so used by the Trial Judge. We must, therefore, reject the contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellants that the finding in respect of the idol is vitiated. In this view it is not necessary to deal with any of the decisions referred to before usThe representatives of both Sects have signed this award, as a temporary measure agreeable to both the Sects, who indicated that they would press their rights in a Civil Court. Once the right of worship of the Digamberies is established there is little doubt that they are entitled to the injunction sought for by them against the Defendants Appellants from preventing them from worshipping or from interfering with that right by placing Chakshus in the idol, Dhwajadand, Kalash on the Temple. In view of these findings the further question that when once it has been found that the Swetamberies have the right of management and possession of the Temple there is a presumption of ownership under Section l10 of the Evidence Act does not arise nor is it relevant. It is no doubt contended by the Respondents Advocate that when consecration of an idol takes place the ownership of the Temple is in the idol and therefore, the question of presumption under Section l10 does not arise. It is again contended by Shri Desai that the moment it is held that it is not possible to come to a conclusion as to which Sect the idol belongs, as has been held by the Court below, the Respondents cannot be allowed to object to the Appellants worshipping the idol according to their tenets. This contention, however, in our view, ignores the rights of the Digamberies to worship in accordance with their tenets. If the contention of the learned Advocate for the Appellants is accepted it will be tantamount to holding that Digamberies have no right to worship as there would be denominal (denominational - Ed.) change in the idol if the Swetamberies are held to have the right to worship it according to their tenets by placing Chakshus in the idol or by errecting their Dhwajadand or Kalash over the Temple19. Lastly it is urged that the High Court ought not to have entertained the cross objection by extending the time for worship from 1 hour to 3 hours. In our view the directions of the High Court are not unreasonable nor do they in any way affect the right of the Respondents to worship because the directions clearly enable the Swetamberies who wish to worship the deity within that period without disturbing the Digamberies to be at liberty to do so and likewise it will be open to Digamberies to go and worship in the temple during the period it is kept open. In view of the acute controversy between these 2 Sects and their reluctance to arrive at an amicable settlement the directions given by the High Court are manifestly reasonable just and proper.