1969 (9) TMI 127 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Haveli at Nadiad and the properties detailed in plaint schedules A & B are the properties of a public religious trust created by the followers of Vallabh cult residing at Nadiad.
2. The origin and management of the suit temple and its properties.
3. The nature of the Vallabh Sampradaya's worship practices and whether they allow for public temples.
4. The validity of the alienations made by the widow of the last Maharaj.
5. The evidence regarding the public or private nature of the temple and its properties.
6. The right of the Vallabh Sampradayees to worship in the temple.
7. The management and usage of the temple's income and properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Public Religious Trust:
The main issue was whether the Haveli at Nadiad and the properties detailed in plaint schedules A & B are the properties of a public religious trust. The plaintiffs, representing the Vallabh Sampradayees, claimed that the temple and its properties were dedicated to the deity Shree Gokulnathji and managed by the Maha Prabhu as a trustee. They contended that the properties were purchased from contributions made by the devotees and that the temple was a place of public worship. The defendants, however, argued that the temple and its properties were private, owned by the Goswami Maharaj, and that the Vallabh Sampradayees could only worship through the Maharaj in his Haveli.

2. Origin and Management:
The plaintiffs claimed that the temple existed since the late 18th century and was constructed by the followers of the Vallabha School. The idol of Gokulnathji was originally worshipped at Nagarwad and later consecrated in the new Mandir at Santh Pipli, Nadiad. They invited Goswami Mathuranathji to manage the temple. The defendants initially admitted that Mathuranathji was the first to settle in Nadiad and worship the idol in his Haveli but later changed their version, claiming that the idol was brought by Mathuranathji's ancestors.

3. Worship Practices:
The defendants argued that the Vallabh Sampradaya does not permit the founding of public temples and that worship can only be conducted through the Maharaj in his Haveli. However, the court referred to the precedent set in Tilkavat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. The State of Rajasthan, which established that the Vallabh School does not prohibit worship in public temples. Each temple's public or private nature must be determined based on its specific facts.

4. Validity of Alienations:
The plaintiffs sought to declare the alienations made by the widow of the last Maharaj as illegal and not binding on the deity. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court reversed this decision, accepting that the properties were part of a public religious trust and that the alienations were invalid.

5. Evidence of Public or Private Nature:
The court examined voluminous evidence, including oral testimonies and documentary evidence, to determine the nature of the temple and its properties. The existence of two sets of accounts-one for the temple and one for the Maharaj-indicated that the temple was treated as a separate entity. The plaintiffs produced evidence of gifts and bequests made to the temple, separate from those made to the Maharaj, and the public's right to worship in the temple.

6. Right to Worship:
The plaintiffs asserted that the Vallabh Sampradayees had the right to worship in the temple as of right. The court found evidence supporting this claim, including the management of the temple by the Mahajan and the public's contributions to the temple's expenses.

7. Management and Usage of Income:
The court concluded that the temple's income and properties were primarily used for the expenses of the sevas and utsavas and the upkeep of the temple. The Maharaj had the right to utilize the income for his and his family's maintenance in a reasonably comfortable manner, but the primary purpose was the temple's upkeep.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the High Court's decision that the Haveli at Nadiad and the properties detailed in plaint schedules A & B are the properties of a public religious trust. The alienations made by the widow of the last Maharaj were declared invalid. The temple was established as a public temple, and the Vallabh Sampradayees had the right to worship there. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.