Case Details

Citation(s)
1959 SLG 422 1959 SLD 422 1959 AIR 1959
Supreme Court of India
Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 798, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 476
BENCHGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

BALKRISHNA SAVALRAM PUJARI AND OTHERS

VS

. RESPONDENT: SHREE DNYANESHWAR MAHARAJSANSTHAN & OTHERS.

Law:

Section:

ACT: Limitation-Suit for Possession of Sansthan by hereditary worshippers on ouster by trustees-Period of limitation- Trustees, if in possession adversely to Plaintiffs-Ouster, if a continuing wrong-Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), Arts. 120, 124, S. 23. HEADNOTE: The appellants who were the hereditary worshippers, called Guravs, of the Shree Dnyaneshwar Sansthan of Alandi, claimed to be its owners. The respondents as trustees of the said Sansthan dismissed eleven of the Guravs in 1911, served a notice on the rest calling upon them to agree to act according to the orders of the Temple committee and appointed six Brahmins to carry on the services of the Sansthan. The Guravs did not agree and sued the respondents for a declaration of their rights of ownership and consequential reliefs. That litigation ended in the High Court in 1921 with the result that their claim of ownership stood rejected but their rights as hereditary worshippers were left open. Thereafter the Guravs took forcible possession of the temple on July 25,1922. The trustees brought a suit under s. 9 of the Specific Relief Act on September 12, 1922, and obtained a decree on November 4, 1932. In execution of that decree the Guravs were dispossessed. The suits, out of which the present appeals arise, were filed by the appellants against the trustees for declaration of their rights as hereditary servants of the Sansthan, a permanent injunction restraining the trustees from obstructing them in the exercise of the said rights and accounts. The respondents claimed that the appellants were servants of the Temple committee and had no hereditary rights as claimed by them; even if they had, their claim to such rights was barred by limitation. The trial Court decreed the suits. In appeal the High Court, while agreeing with the trial court on the merits, disagreed on the question of limitation, held the suits to be barred by limitation under art. 120 Of the Limitation Act, the cause of action arising either on the filing of the s. 9 suit by the respondents or, in any event, on the date when the said suit was decreed, S. 23 of the Act having no application, and allowed the appeals. It was contended on…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492