Bombay High Court
Shamsundardas Nareshdas vs Shriram Mandir Sansthan Through ... on 8 June, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 311 OF 2015
Shamsundardas s/o Nareshdas
Age : Major, Occ. Service,
R/o : Pimprala, Tq. & District : ..... APPELLANT/
Jalgaon. [ORI. DEFENDANT]
ig V E R S U S
1. Shriram Mandir Sansthan
Maheshwar @ Balaji Mandir
Sansthan, Pimprala,
Tq. & District : Jalgaon
(Trust) through Trustees.
2. (Shivchandra Shankarlal Jakhete)
Rameshwar Anandram Jakhete
Age : Major, Occ. Business,
R/o : 73, Navi Peth, Jalgaon.
3. Bhagirath Kesharlal Somani
Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Business,
R/o : 7, Vijay Colony, Jalgaon.
4. (Kashinath Kesharlal Somani)
Subhashchandra Murlidhar Jakhete
Age : Major, Occ. Business,
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:43:00 :::
2 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
R/o : 7, Vijay Colony, Jalgaon.
5. (Pandharinath Modiram Asava)
Surendra Pandharinath Asava
Age : Major, Occ. : Business,
R/o : 49, Kailash Bunglow,
Shahunagar, Jalgaon.
6. Kedarnath Ramnath Somani
Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Business,
igR/o : Plot No. 11, Shriramnagar,
Jalgaon.
7. Onkarnath Murlidhar Jakhete
Age : 63 Yrs., Occ. Business,
R/o : Plot No. 11, Shriramnagar,
Jalgaon.
8. (Narendra Navinchandra Mundada)
Prakash Shivchandra Jakhete
Age : Major, Occ. Business,
R/o : Plot No. 11, Shriramnagar,
Jalgaon.
9. Sham Narayan Asava
Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Business
10. (Kashinath Motilal Birle)
Kamalnayan Hiralal Mantri
Age : Major, Occ. Business,
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:43:00 :::
3 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
R/o : Shahunagar, Datta Colony,
Jalgaon.
At present All R/o Shriram Mandir
Sansthan Pimprala, Tq. & Dist. ....RESPONDENTS/
Jalgaon. [ORI. PLAINTIFFS]
.....
Mr. L.V.Sangeet, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. V.B.Patil, Advocate for R - 1,2, 4 to 7
& 8 to 10.
.....
CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08/06/2016
JUDGMENT :
1. The Appeal is filed to challenge the
Judgment and Decree of R.C.A. No. 145/2002 which was
pending in the Court of the District Judge - 1, Jalgaon.
The Appeal filed by the respondents, a Trust, having a
temple to challenge the Judgment and decree of R.C.S.
No. 192/1999 which was pending in the Court of the
Civil Judge [Jr.Division], Jalgaon is allowed by the
District Court and decree of possession is given in favour
of the plaintiffs. Heard Both sides.
4 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
2. The Suit was filed in respect of some portion
of house No. 811 situated at Pimprala. In city survey
record, this property is numbered as 118 and 119. On
this property, there is temple and there are some rooms
and there is also open space. It is the case of plaintiffs
that defendant/present appellant is occupying one room
from this property.
ig Original plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein is
a public Trust and the Suit is filed by the persons, who
are trustees on record. It is the case of the plaintiff that
the other rooms of the property are given on rent basis by
the Trust and as the defendant was appointed to perform
puja in the temple, he was allowed to use one room for
residential purpose. It is contended that from March,
1995 he was paid monthly salary of ` 750/- and only in
that capacity he was allowed to use the said room. It is
contended that prior to the defendant, one Budharamdas
was working as Priest of this temple.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the conduct
of the defendant is not good and for no reason he is
quarreling with the trustees and he has started making
5 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
false allegations against the trustees. It is contended that
the defendant is addicted to liquor and as he was
harassing everybody including the devotees, complaint
was required to be given to the police. It is contended
that he has given threats to the trustees that he will not
allow the solemnization of marriages and one marriage
was to take place on 17/06/1999.
ig It is the case of the plaintiff that in the
meeting of management committee of the Trust dated
20/02/1999, resolution was made to terminate the
services of defendant and to take back the possession. It
is contended that this resolution was acted upon and
notice of termination was given. It is contended that the
defendant promised to leave the campus within 1 or 2
days, but under one or the other pretext he avoided to
vacate the premises. As the defendant was not vacating
the premises, Suit was filed for the aforesaid relief and
also for the relief of injunction to prevent him from
interfering in puja, performing religious functions, etc. in
the temple.
6. The defendant filed Written Statement and
6 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
contested the matter. He denied everything including
right of the trustees to file Suit. He contended that as per
Guru-Shishya parampara, a tradition of Guru-shishya, he
became become priest of the temple and he was not
appointed by the trustees to perform puja. He denied
that he was getting salary of ` 750/- per month. He
contended that by making false representation to him, his
signatures were obtained on documents viz. pay roll, but
that is false record. He has contended that as he has
become priest due to tradition of the temple, he can not
be evicted from the premises and he can not be prevented
from working as the priest. He denied that his conduct is
not good and notice in that regard was also given. The
defendant made counter claim and requested to issue
order against the plaintiff to prevent them from
alienating the properties of the temple - Trust. The
Written Statement was filed by the plaintiff to this
counter claim.
7. Issues were framed. Both sides gave
evidence. The trial Court had dismissed the Suit by
holding that the record regarding termination is doubtful
in nature and there was no proper termination of service.
7 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
The first appellate Court has held that the Trust had right
to terminate the services even without giving notice in
view of the nature of the appointment. The first
appellate Court held that the notice of termination was
also served and the defendant has no right to perform
puja and he has no right to continue the possession of the
room.
ig While admitting the Appeal, on 22/07/2015
this Court formulated following substantial questions of
law.
[1] Whether the appellant/defendant could
prove that he was appointed as per Guru-
shishya parampara as priest and would be
entitled to appoint his disciple who would
succeed him as priest ?
[2] Whether the appellant/defendant could
prove that he has life time interest in the post
of 'Pujari' of the temple run by the public
Trust ?
9. The plaintiff examined one of the trustees to
8 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
give evidence and the evidence is in accordance with the
pleadings in the plaint. The relevant record viz. copy of
resolution, copy of notice of termination is produced on
record. Certificate of posting under which the notice was
sent is also produced at Exhs. 61 to 63. The record of
payment of salary was confronted to witness of plaintiff
during cross examination by the counsel of the defendant
and so it is given Exh. 67. It is already mentioned that in
the Written Statement defendant has admitted that he
has signed on this record. The record shows that
monthly salary of ` 767/- was paid though in one
month i.e. July, 1996 salary of ` 645/- was paid. This
difference can not make much in favour of the defendant
as the record was to be used only for the purpose of
showing that on the basis of payment of wages,
appointment of the defendant was made by the Trust.
Evidence is given that the defendant was also taking for
himself the offerings given by the devotees in the temple.
The witness of plaintiff has denied that there is
interpolation in the resolution made by the trustees for
removing the defendant and he has given evidence on the
bad conduct of the defendant. The defendant himself has
admitted that he has made complaints against the
9 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
trustees. The evidence is given that the defendant was
not allowing the trustees to supervise the Trust. Copy of
a schedule from the trust register is produced on record
to show that this witness and others are shown as trustees
of the said Trust. This Court has carefully gone through
the resolution under which it was decided to terminate
the services of the defendant. Office copy of the notice of
termination is produced and this Court has perused the
certificate of posting also. The note book in which the
receipts of salary are given is also perused by this Court.
Clerk of the Trust namely Nemichand is examined and his
evidence shows that he had prepared the receipts of
salary and they are duly proved in his evidence.
10. In view of the substantial questions law
formulated by this Court, burden was on the
defendant/appellant to show that by tradition he became
priest and he was not appointed as priest on wages. He
admits that one Budharamdas was priest prior to him.
He has no record whatsoever regarding his nomination
made by Budharamdas. He admits that he had dispute
with the trustees. He has deposed that he was even
collecting rent which was paid by the persons who were
10 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
occupying other rooms and he had used that rent. He
admits that the trustees had asked him to vacate the
premises and he was informed that his services were
terminated. He has however denied that the notice of
termination was served on him. His evidence shows that
he is not educated even in religious function and he does
not know sanskrit. He has avoided to admit many things
which are relevant including the name of his Guru. His
case about the tradition to appoint priest as per Guru-
shishya parampara is not specific and he has not given
the names of such Guru and disciples. Thus, on one hand
there is record to show that he was appointed on wages
and his services are terminated and on the other hand
defendant has no record to prove that he is there as per
Guru-shishya parampara.
11. For the Trust, case reported in AIR 1935
Allahabad 802 [B.Roshan Lal Goswala Vs. District
Board Aligarh and Anr.] was cited. In this case, the
High Court had laid down that such offices are held
either "at pleasure or during good behaviour". It is
further laid down that the office is held at pleasure, the
holder thereof is subject to dismissal at any time without
11 S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
any cause being assigned and no notice or no framing of
charge is necessary for that. Thus, it was not necessary
for the plaintiff to give any reason, but they have given
the reasons and the defendant himself has admitted that
he had dispute with the trustees and he had made
complaints against them also.
12. As there is virtually nothing with the
defendant to prove that by tradition he is entitled to
occupy the premises and perform puja in the temple, the
substantial questions of law formulated are answered
against him and the Appeal stands dismissed. In view
of dismissal of Second Appeal, Civil Application does not
survive and stands disposed of.
[T.V.NALAWADE, J.]
KNP/S.A. 311.2015 - [J]
