Bombay High Court
Dhanottam Vasant Lonkar And Anr vs Gangadhar Vasant Lonkar on 20 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:39786
Neeta Sawant 909-CRA-409-2016.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 409 OF 2016
Shri.Dhonattam Vasant Lonkar
and anr. ...Applicants
(Orig.Decreeholders)
: Versus :
Gangadhar Vasant Lonkar
and Ors. ....Respondents
(Judgment Debtors)
Mr. Harshad Sathe, for the Applicants.
Mr. Shriniwas S. Patwardhan, for the Respondents.
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : 20 SEPTEMBER 2025.
P.C :
1) The petition challenges order dated 1 March 2016 passed by the
Executing Court (District Judge-21, Pune) to the limited extent where the
Court has directed the Bailiff to fix donation boxes of decree holders
(Applicants) in the premises of the temple, except in the Sanctum (Gabhara).
Petitioners are particularly aggrieved by the clarification issued by the
Executing Court that Gabhara means the premises where donation boxes of
Judgment Debtors (Guravs) are already placed for last more than 150 years.
According to the Petitioners, the Judgment Debtors (Guravs/Priests) are
entitled to keep their donation boxes only inside the Gabhara of the temple
_____________________________________________________________________________
Saturday, 20 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 909-CRA-409-2016.docx
where the deity is situated and the place surrendering the Gabhara
(Pradakshana Marg) is the place where the decreeholders/Applicants are
entitled to keep their donation boxes. However, the Executing Court has
interpreted the place around Gabhara (Pradikshana Marg) as also part of
Gabhara thereby raising dispute about entitlement of Judgment Debtors
(Guravs) to donations and offerings made in the boxes kept at the said place.
2) I have heard Mr. Sathe, the learned counsel appearing for the
Revision Applicants and Mr. Patwardhan, the learned Amicus who used to
represent Respondent No.7 earlier and who has been requested to assist the
Court by order dated 22 January 2025 in view of death of Respondent No.7.
3) It appears that Scheme Application No.23/2022 was filed before
the Deputy Charity Commissioner by the Applicants under the provisions of
Section 50-A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Scheme
Application was opposed by the Guravs by intervening in the same laying
claim to offerings made in the donation boxes placed inside the Gabhara of
the Omkareshwar temple in Pune. One of the issues before the Deputy
Charity Commissioner was whether the Applicants who represented the Trust
are entitled to all donations made in boxes kept throughout the temple or
whether some portion of donations could be shared with the Guravs. It was
contended on behalf of Guravs that since Peshwa times and for 150 years,
the right of the Guravs to donations received in boxes kept inside the Gabhara
has been recognised. The Deputy Charity Commissioner upheld the objection
of Guravs and accordingly directed modification of paras-28 to 31 of the
Scheme. As per the modified paras-28 and 31 of the scheme, it was directed
that the Trust shall be entitled to donations made only in boxes kept outside
the Gabhara whereas donations received in boxes kept inside the Gabhara
would that of the Guravs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Saturday, 20 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 909-CRA-409-2016.docx
4) The decreeholders/Applicants filed Execution Petition
No.379/2011 before the District Court for execution of the sanctioned Trust
Scheme and in the execution proceedings, they raised a grievance that the
Guravs were unauthorisedly keeping donation boxes and collecting offerings
received therein which were kept outside the Gabhara. It was the contention
of the decreeholders/Applicants before the Executing Court that Gabhara
means only the place at which the Deity is situated and the place around the
Gabhara is the place where the trust is entitled to keep donation boxes.
5) Thus, the issue that was sought to be raised before the Executing
Court was about the exact place which could be identified and treated as
Gabhara of the temple, for the purposes of application and enforcement of
paras-28 and 31 of the Trust Scheme.
6) In my view, it was impermissible for the Executing Court to
decide as to the exact place which could be treated as a Gabhara and which
place would fall outside the ambit of Gabhara. As a matter of fact, no dispute
was created before the Deputy Charity Commissioner while modifying the
Scheme vide order dated 4 December 2008 as to the exact place which forms
part of Gabhara. Thus, the executing court has apparently attempted to do
something which the Deputy Charity Commissioner had no occasion to
decide. The only controversy before the Deputy Charity Commissioner was
about entitlement of Guravs to share the donations received in the temple.
While the Trust had claimed right to enjoy all donations received from every
part of the temple, the Guravs had contended that atleast donations received
in donation boxes inside the Gabhara must be given to them. This is the
limited controversy that is resolved by the Deputy Charity Commissioner by
upholding the claim of the Guravs. However before the Executing Court, a
new controversy was sought to be raised by the decreeholders/Applicants
about the exact place which can be identified as Gabhara. This controversy
was not involved before the Deputy Charity Commissioner and in my view,
_____________________________________________________________________________
Saturday, 20 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 909-CRA-409-2016.docx
the Executing Court has clearly erred in entertaining the said dispute in
execution proceedings. The proper course of action for the
decreeholders/Applicants was to move the Deputy Charity Commissioner by
filing appropriate proceedings for resolution of the dispute about the exact
place which can be treated as Gabhara of the temple. The Applicants or any
authorised person on behalf of the Trust can therefore file appropriate
proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner for deciding the issue
of ambit of Gabhara of the Omkareshwar Temple. The Deputy Charity
Commissioner can make appropriate inquiry in the matter and decide the
issue of location and ambit of Gabhara of the Temple. Alternatively the
Deputy Charity Commissioner can also decide the competing claims of the
Trust and Guravs about their respective claims over donations and offerings,
if it comes to conclusion that the dispute relating to location/ambit of
Gabhara is too technical. Ultimately, the real dispute between the parties is
about share in the offerings made by the devotees in the Temple. That dispute
needs to be resolved in substantive proceedings filed before the Deputy
Charity Commissioner and cannot be decided in Execution Proceedings.
7) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order :
(I) Applicants would be at liberty to adopt appropriate
proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner for
deciding the entitlement of Trust and Guravs to their
respective share in offerings made at the Temple, including
but not limited to the issue of exact location and ambit of
Gabhara..
(ii) Nothing observed in order dated 1 March 2016 passed by
the Executing Court shall affect the mind of the Deputy
Charity Commissioner while deciding the said dispute.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Saturday, 20 September 2025
Neeta Sawant 909-CRA-409-2016.docx
8) With the above directions, the Civil Revision Application is disposed
of. The Deputy Charity Commissioner shall proceed to decide the
controversy without being influenced by any of the observations made in the
present order.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2025.09.22
18:03:37
+0530
_____________________________________________________________________________
Saturday, 20 September 2025
