9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of mortgage deed regarding offerings at the temple of Goddess Rukhmini at Pandharpur, enforcement of mortgage debt through sale and execution, applicability of Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, limitation of bidders in Court sales, and adherence to custom in temple practices. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the interpretation of a mortgage deed concerning a specific interest in the offerings at the temple of Goddess Rukhmini at Pandharpur. The key issue is whether this interest can be validly mortgaged and sold in execution to a member of the Utpats class, who are the priests officiating at the temple. The court analyzed the mortgage deed and concluded that it only mortgaged a share of the mortgagor in the net proceeds of the offerings, not the right to worship the Goddess or receive offerings directly. Regarding the custom at the temple, similar to the main temple at Pandharpur, the Utpats priests auction the right to officiate and receive offerings, dividing the proceeds among themselves. The court acknowledged the frequent mortgaging and redemption of individual shares among the Utpats, emphasizing that these transactions were confined to the Utpats themselves and not open to outsiders. The court upheld the finding on custom without challenge. The court then delved into the enforceability of the mortgage debt through sale and execution. Both lower courts held that the debt could be enforced, as the interest mortgaged fell within Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code. The argument that the property constituted a right of personal service under proviso (f) was dismissed, as the mortgage only encompassed the mortgagor's share in the net offerings, distinguishing it from cases involving direct worship rights or ownership of offerings. Further, the judgment addressed the limitation of bidders in Court sales, rejecting the contention that bidders must not be restricted to a particular class. The court reasoned that restricting bidders to the Utpats class was permissible to prevent harm to worship practices and maintain adherence to the temple's customs. The judgment emphasized that the sale would not disrupt the temple's traditions but rather align with the historical financial transactions within the Utpats community. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the lower appellate court's decision, affirming the validity of conducting a sale with restricted bidders to the Utpats class. The judgment focused solely on legal aspects, leaving the ethical considerations of financial transactions in divine worship to prior discussions. The appeal was dismissed with costs, with agreement from both judges.
|
