(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2477 of 2012 Shri Teerth Guru Pushkar Purohit Sangh Trust and anr. vs. Pt. Ramkakant Parashar (2) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1638 of 2011 Pandit Hari Prasad Parashar vs. Shri Teerth Guru Pushkar Purohit Sangh Trust and anr (3) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1593 of 2011 Pandit Prashant Parashar vs. Shri Teerth Guru Pushkar Purohit Sangh Trust and anr. (4) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1642 of 2011 Pandit Ajay Parashar vs. Shri Teerth Guru Pushkar Purohit Sangh Trust and anr. (5) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1758 of 2011 Pandit Ashok Parashar vs. Shri Teerth Guru Pushkar Purohit Sangh Trust and anr. (6) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1759 of 2011 Pandit Narendra Parashar vs. Shri Teerth Guru Pushkar Purohit Sangh Trust and anr. ----
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
10.1.2013
Mr.Mahendra Goyal in SBCMA No. 2477 of 2012 for the appellants
Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur for the appellants in SBCMA Nos.1593/2011,1758/2011 and 1759/2011 and for the respondent in SBCMA No.2477 of 2012.
Mr. Peush Nag for the appellants in SBCMA No. 1638 of 2011 and 1642 of 2011
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh for the respondents in SBCMA Nos.1593/2011, 1758/2011, 1642/2011, and 1638/2011
—
The subject matter of dispute in all these appeals is same and hence they are being heard together and are being disposed by this common order.
2. SBCMA No.2477 of 2012 has been filed by Shree Teerth Guru Pushkar Purohit Sangh Trust and its President against the order dated 11.4.2012 passed by Additional District Judge No.2 Ajmer in Civil Misc. Case No. 7/12 (178/11) whereby the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed. SBCMA Nos.1593/2011, 1638/2011, 1642/2011, 1758/2011 and 1759/2011 have been filed by the appellants Pandit Prashant Parashar, Pandit Hari Prasad, Pandit Ajay Parashar and Pandit Nartendra Parashar against the different order dated 5.2.2011 passed by Additional District Judge No.3 Ajmer in Civil Suit Nos. 277/2010, 278/2010, 283/2010, 101/2010 and 102/2010 whereby the applications for interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC against the defendant- respondents, who are respondents in these appeals were rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case as stated in SBCMA No. 2477 of 2012 are that Pushkar Sarovar, the most sacred lake in India, also recknoned as the Holi of the Holiest is situated in Pushkar known as the kind of sacred places. As per Padam Puran, the lake came to be created by the Lotus which fell to earth from the hand of the Brahma, the creator of the World. As per the Bronze inscription ( Tamra Patra) in Samwat 1144, the then Maharaja Nahar Rao Padihar of Mandore, Jodhpur who also ruled the Pushkar, conferred the honour and office of the Pushkar Guru and all the rights relating to Purohitai of the Pushkar Sarovar upon the ancestors of the appellants/defendants, i.e. Guru Shri Gokleshwarji. It was stipulated that the rights of Purohitai would be hereditary and the descendants of Guru Shri Gokleshwar ji only would be entitled to do Seva Pooja and Purohitai of the Pushkar Sarovar. Since then, the descendants of Guru Gokleshwar Ji who now are divided in seven thoks comprising of about 1800 families, which constitute a religious denomination in itself, are doing Purohitai and do perform the Seva Pooja and other rituals of Pushkar Sarovar as pr their religious belief. To do Seva Pooja, ministration of Seva Pooja to have offerings not only from the Jijmans but also from the pilgrims of Pushkar Sarovar is the ancestral, hereditary and customary right and privilege of the descendants of Guru Gokleshwar Ji. The law and the custom have recognised the Jijmani and Purohitai rights as proprietary and customary rights and privileges which are not only inheritable but sometimes, transferable also. Maharaja Nahar Rao Padihar and subsequently, the other Ruilers of Pushkar have conferred Jagirdari of Pushkar as well as of Villages in the vicinity upon the descendants of Guru Gokleshwar Ji. During the British Rule, the Rules were framed for guidance of Shamlat Committee which comprised of the seven Thoks, the descendants of Guru Gokleshwar Ji, in the matter of management and distribution of the income from the Jagir of Pushkar. The elections of the Shamlat Committee were being held under the control of the Tehsildar, Ajmer. With the advent of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act, 1955, the Jagir came to be abolished and the members of seven Thoks were held entitled for the compensation of the Jagir and tangilble immnovable rights in the property by the court of Compensation Commissioner, Ajmer vide its order dated 17.8.1963. The right of seven Thoks to receive compensation on resumption of the Jagir was recognised by the civil court vide its order dated 12.11.1959. These findings were upheld even by the Division Bench of the High Court vide its judgment dated 9.9.1969. Even after abolition of the Jagir, the hereditary and customary right of ministering worship and Purohitai of Pushkar Sarovar continues with the descendants of Guru Gokleshwarji which has not been taken away by any provision of law. The appellants have exclusive right to accept the offerings from the Jijmans and pilgrims coming for worship of Pushkar Sarovar.
4. It has been stated in appeal No.2477 of 2012 that the plaintiff- respondent who admittedly was not the member of seven Thoks or for that matter, the descendants of Guru Gokeshwarji filed a suit for permanent injunction without seeking the relief of declaration against the appellants alleging that he was prevented on 26.8.2010 by some people from ministering Seva Poojas and from Purohitai at Sarovar. Since he was member of the registered Trust, the defendant No.1, he was entitled for minsitering Seva Pooja and Purohitai. An injunction was sought against the defendants not to prevent him to do worship of Pushkar Sarovar and to accept offerings from the pilgrims coming for worship of Pushkar Sarovar. Alongwith the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with section 151 CPC. The defendants filed their reply to the application for temporary injunction wherein it was submitted that the plaintiff was resident of village Palsana, Jaipur, has started living in Pushkar about 7-8 years ago only and was running his Kirana business in the name of Sidheshwar General Store. It was denied that the plaintiff had any ancestral or customary right of Purohitai at Pushkar Sarovar which was available to the descendants of Guru Gokleshwar Ji only. It was prayed that the application filed by the plaintiff may be dismissed. The trial court vide its order dated 11.4.2012 allowed the temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff.
5. Similarly the temporary injunctions applications in SBCMA Nos. 1593/2011, 1638/2011, 1642/2011, 1758/2011 and 1759/2011 before the trial after hearing the parties, the trial court rejected the temporary injunction applications filed by the plaintiff- appellants and hence they have filed the the above appeals. In SBCMA Nos.1593/2011, 1638/2011, 1642/2011, 1758/2011 and 1759/2011 this court on different dates passed interim orders and the respondents were restrained to stop the appellants from performing the work of Purohitai at Pushkar Lake.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the orders passed by the trial court in the temporary injunction applications filed by the appellants. It would be in the interest of justice to direct the trial court in all the civil suits pending before the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Till then the interim orders passed by this court in the appeals filed by the appellants in SBCMA Nos.1593/2011, 1638/2011, 1642/2011, 1758/2011 and 1759/2011 and the temporary injunction granted by the trial court (Additional District Judge No.2 Ajmer ) in Civil Misc. Case No. 7/12 (178/11) dated 11.4.2012 shall remain continued.
7. With the above directions these misc. appeals are disposed of. The stay applications are also stand disposed of. The record of the case if received in all these appeals may be sent back to the trial court immediately.
(Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J.
Pareek/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(O P Pareek)
PS-cum JW