Case: Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs. Rannchhoddas Kalidas And Ors

3. The plaintiffs are the residents of Nadiad. They are Vaishnavites. They belong to the Vallabh Sampradaya. They sued for a declaration that the properties mentioned in Schedules A and B of plaint are properties of the ownership of the trust mentioned earlier. They are suing on behalf of the Vallabha Sampradayees residing at Nadiad. According to their case as finally evolved that even during the last quarter of the 18th Century, the Mandir of the Gokulnathji existed at Nagarwad in Nadiad Prant, but in about 1821, a new Mandir was constructed by the followers of the Vallabha school at Santh Pipli, Nadiad and the idol of Gokulnathji which was previously worshipped at Nagarwad was taken and consecrated there. In about 1831 they invited Goswami Mathuranathji, a direct descendant of Shri Vallabhacharya to come over to Nadiad and take up the management of the Mandi as its Maha Prabhu. According to the plaintiffs the Mandir in question was constructed by the Vallabha Sampradayees and the expenses of the sevas as well as the utsavas performed in the Mandir were contributed by them. They further say that the properties belonging to the trust were purchased from the contributions made by the devotees of that temple. They assert that the persons belonging to the Vallabha Sampradaya have a right to have darshan of the deities in the Mandir, according to usage, as of right. In short their case is that the Mandir in question is a place of public religious worship by the persons belonging to the Vallabha Sampradaya and the Maha Prabhu is only a trustee. He has a right to reside in the upstair portion of the Mandir and further he can utilise a reasonable portion of the income of the trust, after meeting the requirements of the trust for his maintenance as well as the maintenance of the members of his family. They contend that the suit properties were dedicated to Shree Gokulnathji and the Maha Prabhu has no independent right of his own in those properties. It is further said that the management of the temple was carried on efficiently by Mathuranathji and his descendants till about the time Annirudhalalji became the Maha Prabhu in Samv. 1955. Annirudhalalji under evil advice sought to secure the Jamnagar Gadi and for that purpose spent enormous sums of money from out of the funds belonging to the suit temple. He also incurred considerable debts in that connection. He died in Samv. 1992. Thereafter defendant No. 1, his widow took over the management of the suit temple and its properties.During her management she began to assert that she was the absolute owner of the suit properties including the suit temple. She alienated several items out of the suit properties. Hence they were constrained to bring the suit under appeal for the declaration mentioned earlier and also for a further declaration that the alienations effected by her are illegal, improper and unauthorised and not binding on the deity. They also sought a mandatory injunction against defendants Nos. 2, 7 to 14 to restore lot No. 2 property in Sch. A to defendant No. 1 for the benefit of the deity Shree Gokulnathji after declaring that the sale deed dated 19, April, 1953, passed by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 in respect of it is illegal, improper, unauthorised and without consideration and the same is not binding on the deity. They have also asked for a permanent injunction against defendants 3, 4, 5 and 6 restraining them from enforcing the mortgages, dated 14th March, 1939, 27th January, 1942, 12th January, 1942 and 17th December 1941, passed by defendant No. 1 in their favour. The suit was mainly contested by defendant No. 1. According to her Goswami Mathuranathji Maharaj was the owner of the idol Shri Gokulnathji. It is he who established the Haveli at Nadiad and founded his Gadi there; he was not only the owner of the Haveli but he was also the owner of the deities that were being worshipped in that Haveli. She further pleaded that as per the tenets and usages of the Vallabha school, it is not possible for the members of that cult to found a temple. They can only worship through the Acharya (Maha Prabhu) in his house known as Haveli. According to their cult the Goswami Maharaj otherwise known as Maha Prabhu is the emblem of God head and the living representative of divinity. She went further and took up the plea that according to the Vallabha Sampradaya no deity can own any property. She further averred that Mathuranathji Maharaj and his descendants received from time to time presents and gifts made by his followers. Those presents were made to them as a mark of reverence and respect to them and with a view to receive their grace. They were the absolute owners of the idols they worshipped, the presents and gifts made to them and of the properties acquired by them. She denied that the Haveli in which Shri Gokulnathji is worshipped is a public temple. She also denied that the Vallabh Sampradayees were entitled to have the Darshana of that deity in that Haveli as of right. She denied the plaint averments that all or any portion of the suit properties were acquired from the funds raised by the devotees or that the sevas or festivals were conducted from out of the contributions made by them. She justified the impugned alienations mainly on the ground that she had absolute right to deal with the suit properties as she pleased. The other defendants supported the defence taken by the 1st defendant. They further pleaded that the alienations effected in their favour were supported by consideration and they were bona fide alienees and therefore those alienations are not open to challenge.4. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit principally on the ground that as per the tenets and usages of Vallbaha School it is impermissible for Vallabh Sampradayees to found a public temple and therefore, it is not possible to uphold the pleas advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs. In appeal the High Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. It accepted the plaintiffs case that suit properties were the properties of a public religious trust and the alienations impeached were not valid and binding on the trust. This appeal has been brought by the 1st defendant. The alienees have not appealed against the decree of the High Court. In this Court they merely supported the pleas taken by the 1st defendant.

Reasoning: 7. Yet another circumstance that has to be borne in mind in appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties is about the manner in which Mathuranathji and his descendants were managing thethe stage of pleadings it was common ground between the parties that Mathuranathji was the first person to be recognised as their Maharaj by the Vallabh Sampradayees ofagree with thesehad maintained regular and systematic accounts. It is obvious they were maintaining two sets of accounts, one relating to the income and expenses of the deity and another relating to the personal income and expenses of the Maharaj. But when the 1st defendant was summoned to produce those accounts, the accounts relating to certain important periods were not produced and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for their non-production. From this omission the High Court has drawn the inference that those account-books have been kept back as the evidence which those books would have afforded was not favourable to the 1st defendants case. We agree with that conclusion. Similarly, certain important documents have been kept back by the 1st defendant. Some of those documents were available at the time of the inventory but when the 1st defendant was summoned to produce them she failed to do so. This circumstance has again led the High Court to infer that those documents were deliberately kept back in order to suppress material evidence supporting the plaintiffs case. Two of the important documents produced into court namely Exhs. 501 and 503 were found to have been tampered with. Exh. 501 appears to be a register of the temple properties but the title page of that book has been mutilated.The top portion of that page had been clearly cut and removed. It is reasonable to assume that the portion that has been removed contained the title of the register. Possibly it mentioned that it is the property register of Shree Gokulnathjis temple.It is reasonable to draw this inference from the surrounding circumstances. Exh. 503 is the register relating to the expenses incurred for repairs of Shree Gokulnathjis temple. That register was also tampered with. The original book was not made available to us for examination, but the High Court which had the opportunity of examining that book has made the following remarks in its judgmentnew slip was affixed to this document, and the heading which showed that the properties belonged to Shree Gokulnathjis temple was tornHigh Court has also held that Exh. 633, which evidences the sale of S. No. 1840, was torn in such a way as to justify the plaintiffs complaint that in the torn portion was the description of the Maharaj as the Vahiwatdar of theplaintiffs case as mentioned earlier, was that there was a temple of Shree Gokulnathji at Nagarwad in Nadiad even before Mathuranathji arrived at that place and according to them Mathuranathji had in fact been invited by the Vallabh Sampradayees of Nadiad to take over the management of the temple that was already existing. In her written statement defendant No. 1 admitted that Mathuranathji was the first descendant of Vallabha to settle down in Nadiad. According to her he brought with him the idol of Shree Gokulnathji and started worshiping that idol in his Haveli. At a later stage the 1st defendant changed her version and put forward the theory that the ancestors of Mathuranathji had brought the idol of Shree Gokulnathji to Nadiad and installed the same there long before Mathuranathji came to that place. This significant deviation in the 1st defendants case has evidently been introduced to meet the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiffs about the existence of Gokulnathji temple even before Mathuranathji was born inother words the plea taken in the written statement is that the suit properties were the private properties of the Maharaj and that there was no trust, private or public.But the case argued before this Court is a wholly different one viz., the suit properties were partly the properties of a private trust and partly the private properties of the Maharaj. The 1st defendant cannot be permitted to take up a case which is wholly inconsistent with that pleaded.This belated attempt to bypass the evidence adduced appears to be more a manoeuvre than a genuine explanation of the documentary evidence adduced. It is amply proved that ever since Mathuranathji took over the management of the shrine, two sets of account books have been maintained, one relating to the income and expenses of the shrine and the other relating to that of the Maharaj. These account books and other documents show that presents and gifts used to be made to the deity as well as to the Maharaj. The two were quite separate and distinct. Maharaj himself has been making gifts to the deity.He has been, at times utilising the funds belonging to the deity and thereafter reimbursing the same. The account books which have been produced clearly go to show that the deity and the Maharaj were treated as two different and distinct legal entities. The evidence afforded by the account books isare unable to accept this new plea. It runs counter to the case pleaded in the written statement. This is not a purely legal contention. The 1st defendant must have known whether there was any dedication in favour of Shree Gokulnathji and whether any portion of the suit properties were the properties of a private trust. She and her advisers must have known at all relevant times the true nature of the accounts maintained. Mr. Narasaraju is not right in his contention that the plea taken by him in this Court is a purely legal plea. It essentially relates to questions of fact. Hence we informed Mr. Narasaraju that we will not entertain the plea incircumstance again is of no consequence. Each sect nay each temple has its own customs. The usage pleaded by the appellant is not inconsistent with that temple being a publicthe first place this plea has not been satisfactorily established. Further according to the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant those individuals were kept out of the temple because of some act of indiscipline on their part. The power to manage a temple includes within itself the power to maintain discipline within the precincts of thatlearned Judges of the High Court have carefully looked into that aspect. After examining the relevant evidence on record they arrived at the conclusion that though initially the amount in question was credited to the account of the Maharaj at a subsequent stage it was transferred to the account of the temple by means of adjustment entries. The learned Counsel for the appellant was unable to satisfy us that this conclusion of the High Court was incorrect.Though the appearance of a temple is a relevant circumstance, it is by no means a decisivebrief the origin of the temple, the manner in which its affairs are managed, the nature and extent of gifts received by it, rights exercised by the devotees in regard to worship therein, the consciousness of the manager and the consciousness of the devotees themselves as to the character of the temple are factors that go to establish whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple.In examining the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs in proof of the fact that the temple in question is a public temple we have to bear in mind the tests laid down by the courts for determining whether a given temple is a public temple orit is not possible to come to a positive conclusion that the suit temple originated as a public temple nor there is any conclusive evidence before us to determine the date of its origin. All that we can say is that the origin of this temple is lost in antiquity. Therefore for determining whether it is a public temple or not we must depend on other circumstances.19. It is established by the evidence on record that Gokulnathji is neither the Nidhi Swaroop nor Seva Swaroop of Mathuranathjis branch. Therefore it is unlikely that Mathuranathji branch would have installed the idol of Shree Gokulnathji for their private worship though the idol of Shree Gokulnathji is one of the Swaroops of Lordplea taken by the appellant that Gokulnathji was one of the Nidhi Swaroop given to the branch of Mathuranathji by Vallabha is opposed to the documentary evidence produced by herself. That plea has not been pressed before us for our acceptance.20. From the account books produced in this case, it is clear that ever since 1865 two sets of accounts had been maintained by the Maharaj, one relating to the temple and another relating tothis is not a satisfactory explanation for theirfor the years 1900 to 1907, only the temple accounts have been produced but for the period from 1908 and 1934 both the sets have been produced. Again for the period 1935 to 1943, only the temple account books have been produced and not the personal account books of the Maharaj. This pick and choose method adopted in the matter of producing account books unmistakably indicate that the appellant was deliberately keeping back unfavourable evidence. Evidence on record establishes that some of the documents which were there at the time of the inventory were not produced when summoned. Under those circumstances the High Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the appellant.21. The existence of two sets of accounts clearly goes to indicate that the Maharaj had always considered the temple as an entity different from themselves. That circumstance goes to negative the contention of the appellant that the deity was owned by the Maharaj and therefore the deity as well as the suit properties are his privatesignatories to that application must have been familiar with the history of the suit temple. We can reasonably assume that the facts stated therein are correct. Those facts support the case of the plaintiffs.above-mentioned instances go to falsify the contention of the appellant that the idol of Shree Gokulnathji was the private property of the Maharaj. On the other hand they establish that the temple in question was treated by all concerned as a public temple.temple.28. There is clear, consistent and reliable evidence to show that Vallabha Sampradaees have been worshipping in the suit temple as of right. There is also evidence to show that the temple has all along been primarily maintained from the contributions made by the devotees belonging to the Vallabha School. The suit temple appears to be an important temple attracting a large number of devotees. Utsavas and other festivals are performed in that temple in a reasonably grand scale. The devotees as well as the Maharaj were treating that temple as a public temple. From the facts proved we have no hesitation in agreeing with the High Court that the temple in question is a publichave earlier come to the conclusion that the temple has been getting substantial contributions from its devotees in diverse ways. It was also the recipient of several gifts. It had adequate resources to make the acquisitions with which we are concerned in this case. The temple is exclusively managed by the Goswamiji Maharaj. It maintains regular accounts. Maharaj also maintains his separate accounts. Therefore it was easy for the appellant to prove the source from which the acquisitions in question were made and how their income was treated. The appellant has led no evidence to show that they were her own properties. She has failed to produce some of the accounts relating to the relevant periods. In this background let us proceed to examine the title to the suitcircumstances conclusively establish that lot No. 2 is temple property.Lot No. 1 is the site in which the suit temple is situate. It was conceded on behalf of the appellant that if we come to the conclusion that the suit temple is a public temple that item of property will have to be considered as the property of the temple. Lot No. 2 is the garden land in Survey No. 2031. It is used for raising flowers for worship in the temple. That land appears to have been granted to Mathuranathji but the appellant admitted in her deposition that item of property was at all time managed by the Haveli and whoever is the owner of the Haveli is the owner of the garden. This admission is corroborated by considerable other evidence. Vaishnav merchants of Nadiad contributed for the expenses of installation of an electric pump in that garden and for its subsequent repairs. All expenses incurred for that garden have always been debited and all income received therefrom credited to the temple accounts. That garden is included in the Patriks of the temple property, prepared long before the present dispute arose. When a part of that property was compulsorily acquired on three different occasions, the compensation received was credited to the temple account.Lot No. 3 is the building known as Goshala. Its survey No. is 994. It is used for the purpose of tethering the cows reared for supplying milk and butter for the worship of Balkrishnalalji, one of the deities installed in the temple. This property is included in Exs. 500 and 501. It is shown in the property register as the property belonging to the Devasthan Charity. The balance sheet prepared in 1896 treats the rent of the shops and houses in that site as the income from temple properties - See Exh. 1048. We think the High Court was right in concluding on the basis of this evidence that that item belongs to thebefore we conclude we should like to clarify one aspect which undoubtedly is implicit in the judgment of the High Court.The Goswami Maharajas or Maharanis are not mere managers. In the temples belonging to the Vallabha School they have an important place. The Maharaj is the Maha Prabhu. The Vallabh devotees worship their deity through him. It is true that the income from temple properties has to be primarily used for the expenses of the sevas and utsavas in the temple, the upkeep, renovation and improvements of the temple premises but subject to these demands, the Maharaj has a right to utilise the temple income in maintaining himself and his family in a reasonably comfortable manner.In the circumstances of the case we see no useful purpose in directing the appellant to pay the costs of the plaintiffs in this appeal. She can only pay the same from temple funds. The alienees have not appealed against the judgment of the High Court. When we mentioned this aspect to Mr. S. T. Desai, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs he indicated that the parties may be left to bear their own costs in this appeal.Lot No. 4 is a shop bearing city survey No. 720. This property was gifted by Kuber Jetha Vashram as per his will Exh. 673 for the samagri of the temple. The bequest is made in favour of Shree Gokulnathji Maharaj.Hence this is clearly an item of property belonging to the suit temple.33. Lot No. 5 is survey No. 121. It is gifted under Exh. 610 dated June 29, 1868. The gift is purported to have been made in favour of the Maharaj but the income from this property has always been credited to the temple accounts, the earliest entry being that of the year 1870. In the property register, this property is shown as temple property and the rent note Exh. 535 is taken in the name of the Vahivatdar of Shree Gokulnathji. Hence this item of the property should also be held to be that of the temple.34. Lot No. 6 consists of 14 small items of property. They are all agricultural fields. They have been shown in the property register as the properties of the temple. Out of 14 items in this lot, items Nos. 6, 9, 11, 12 and 14 originally belonged to the Maharaj but they have been all along dealt with by the Maharaj as temple property. Item No. 1 in lot No. 6 belongs to the temple. The mortgage Exh. 608 relates to this item and the same was executed in favour of the temple on May 17, 1897. A rent note in respect of this property was taken on April 22, 1915 in the name of the Vahivatdar of the temple. Items 2, 3 and 4 of that lot are shown in the record of rights in the name of the Maharaj but the income from those properties and the expenses incurred for the same have always been entered in the temple accounts. Item 5 of this lot had been gifted to the temple under Exh. 1049. Item 8 of this lot had been purchased in the name of the Maharani Vahuji on June 2, 1897 for Rs. 1150. The income of this property has been shown in the temple accounts. So far as item 10 is concerned though the record of rights stands in the name of the Maharaj personally, its sale price (Rs. 800-0-6) has been credited to the temple accounts. From all this it is clear that the temple is the owner of lot No. 6.35. Now coming to lot No. 7, the entries in the account books clearly show that this is temple property. The consideration for the purchase of a portion of it was paid from the temple funds. A portion of that property had been gifted to the temple under Exh. 461.36. Lot No. 8 was purchased in 1877 from the temple funds and lot No. 13 was gifted to the temple. Lot No. 9 was received by the temple under will Exh. 512 and lot No. 10 was always treated as temple property in the account books. So also lot Nos. 11 and 12. Similarly lot Nos. 13 and 14 were always being treated as temple properties.We are in agreement with the learned judges of the High Court that the properties detailed in the plaint schedule are all temple properties.