{"id":160879,"date":"2005-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005"},"modified":"2016-08-23T02:11:37","modified_gmt":"2016-08-22T20:41:37","slug":"vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005","title":{"rendered":"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: A Kumar<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5641 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nVinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors.\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nShivaram & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/07\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. Singh & Arun Kumar\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARUN KUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe question for consideration in this appeal is :Whether a suit to
\nestablish a right to be hereditary ‘archaks’ (Pujaris) in a temple and a
\nshare in the offerings made to the deity, is a suit in relation to personal\/
\nprivate right of the archaks or it is a suit in the nature of exercising a
\npublic right in a public trust? The question has arisen in the context of
\nbar created by Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
\nRegarding suits falling within the categories enumerated in Section 50
\nof the Act, either the Charity Commissioner has to file them or they
\nhave to be filed after obtaining consent in writing of the Charity
\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n
\tBriefly, the facts are :\t the plaintiffs (respondents herein)
\nclaiming to be hereditary archaks of the temple in suit from times
\nimmemorial and having a right to perform their duties (poojapal)as
\narchaks in the temple, filed a civil suit for declaration to establish these
\nrights.  According to the plaintiffs, their family has been performing
\npoojapali and exercising the rights incidental thereto since ancient
\ntimes.  The plaintiffs also claimed that they are entitled to emoluments
\nin the form of share in the offerings made by the devotees.  The
\nancestors of  the plaintiffs have been exercising such rights since time
\nimmemorial when there was no trust for the temple and there were no
\ntrustees.  The trust was created much later and the trustees are only
\nmanagers of the properties of the trust.  The trustees sought to remove
\nthe plaintiffs from archakship.  According to plaintiffs the trustees had
\nno right to remove hereditary archaks like the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs
\nfurther pleaded that often the offerings to the deity are symbol of
\nsacrificial dedication of the produce of the land grown by the efforts of
\nthe devotees.  “Padiakki” is the rice and coconut given by the devotees
\nas dan (donation) to the officiating priest to take  home.  On this count,
\nthe priest has to accept the  many negative karmas of the donor and to
\nmitigate this, the priest has to perform penance.  The plaintiffs had
\nbeen exercising their rights to the knowledge of the defendants who are
\nthe trustees of the temple trust.  According to the plaintiffs the
\narchakship is not a job or vocation but a hereditary religious office,
\nfunctions whereof they have to discharge ungrudgingly.  A state of
\nharmony and cooperation between the trustees and archaks continued
\ntill 1974-75.  Thereafter, the trustees allegedly prepared a
\n“Niyamavali” (Rule Book) meant for regulating the activities like
\nPooja and Viniyogas etc.  The  Niyamavali had no legal or statutory
\nbacking.  Under the Niyamavali the trustees also tried to interfere with
\nthe right of the plaintiffs regarding remuneration and donations
\nreceived by them from the devotees.  According to the plaintiffs the
\nemoluments received by the archaks are not the income of the temple.
\n\tIn order to get rid of the plaintiffs, the defendants issued a notice
\ndated 21st September, 1994 terminating their services as archaks.  The
\nplaintiffs filed the instant suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are
\nhereditary archaks of Shri Mahaganapathy (Vinayaka Dev) Temple of
\nIdagunji in Honnavar Taluk and for consequential reliefs like declaring
\nthat the order of termination issued by defendants dated 21st
\nSeptember, 1994 is illegal, void and contrary to the principles of
\nnatural justice etc.
\n\tThe defendants  appellants filed a written statement denying the
\nrights of the plaintiffs to be hereditary archaks.  It was further pleaded
\nthat the temple was under a public trust registered under the Bombay
\nPublic Trusts Act, 1950.  Further a plea was taken in the written
\nstatement that the suit filed against the trustees of the public trust and
\nthe reliefs prayed in the plaint directly relate to administration and
\nmanagement of the public trust and as such without making the temple
\ntrust a party, the suit was not maintainable in view of Sections 50, 51,
\n79 and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act read with Section 9 of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure.  According to the defendants, the plaintiffs
\nhad not obtained the permission of the Charity Commissioner as
\nrequired under Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts  Act to
\nfile the present suit.\n<\/p>\n
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed
\nas many as 32 issues.  At the stage of evidence the defendants  filed an
\napplication under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code
\nof Civil Procedure that certain issues relating to maintainability of the
\nsuit be tried as preliminary issues.  The application was rejected by the
\nlearned Civil Judge.  The defendants filed a Revision Petition under
\nSection 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the High Court.  The
\nHigh Court declined to interfere with the order of the trial court and
\naccordingly dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. Further, in view of
\nthe fact that the suit had been pending for more than 10 years, a
\ndirection was issued to the trial court to dispose of the suit on merits
\nwithin six months.  The defendants, according to the said order, have
\ncome up before this court by way of a petition for special leave to
\nappeal.  Leave was  granted and the order under appeal was stayed by
\nthis court on 30th August, 2004.  Interim stay of the impugned order
\nwas passed on the first day of hearing, i.e. on 7th May, 2004.  We have
\nheard learned counsel for the parties at length.  The main question for
\nconsideration is whether the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs is
\none which pertains to administration of a public trust or is it a suit to
\nestablish a private right to archakship or worship in the temple filed by
\npersons claiming to be having such a right?  Relevant portion of
\nSection 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act as applicable to the facts of
\nthe present case is reproduced as under :\n<\/p>\n
” Section 50 :\n<\/p>\n
In any case-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\twhere it is alleged that there is a breach of a
\npublic trust,<\/p>\n
(ii)\twhere a declaration is necessary that a
\nparticular property is a property belonging to a
\npublic trust or where a direction is required to
\nrecover the possession of such property or the
\nproceeds thereof or for an account of such
\nproperty or proceeds from any person including
\na person holding adversely to the public trust, or<\/p>\n
(iii)\twhere the direction of the Court is deemed
\nnecessary for the administration of any public
\ntrust,<\/p>\n
the Charity Commissioner or two or more persons
\nhaving an interest in the trust and having obtained the
\nconsent in writing of the Charity Commissioner as
\nprovided in Section 51 may institute a suit whether
\ncontentious or not in the Court within the local limits of
\nwhose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject matter
\nof the trust is situate, to obtain a decree for any of the
\nfollowing reliefs :\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tan order for the recovery of the possession of such
\nproperty or proceeds thereof,<\/p>\n
(b)\tthe removal of any trustee or manager,<\/p>\n
(c)\tthe appointment of a new trustee or manager,<\/p>\n
(cc)\tvesting any property in a trustee,<\/p>\n
(d)\ta direction for taking accounts and making certain
\ninquiries,<\/p>\n
(e)\ta declaration as to what proportion of the trust
\nproperty or of the interest therein shall be
\nallocated to any particular object of the trust,<\/p>\n
(f)\ta direction authorizing the whole or any part of the
\ntrust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or
\nexchanged,<\/p>\n
(g)\tthe settlement of a scheme or variations or
\nalterations in a scheme already settled, or<\/p>\n
(h)\tgranting such further or other relief as the nature
\nof the case may require :\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no suit claiming any of the reliefs
\nspecified in this section shall be instituted in
\nrespect of any public trust except in conformity
\nwith the provisions thereof.”\n<\/p>\n
\tTo find out the nature of the suit, we have to go to the plaint in
\nthe suit as instituted by the plaintiffs- respondents in the Civil Court.  It
\nis the case of the plaintiffs that they have a hereditary right of
\narchakship with emoluments attached.  This right of archakship started
\nwith the consecration of the deity.  The families of the plaintiffs have
\nbeen performing archakship right from the time of consecration of the
\ndeity.  In fact the ancestors of the plaintiffs who were performing the
\nfunctions as archaks also acted as managers and custodians of the
\ntemple and its properties.  After the introduction of the Madras
\nEndowment  Act, the trustees were appointed.  One of the members of
\nthe families of the plaintiffs used to be appointed as a trustee of the
\nBoard which consisted of five trustees at the initial stages.  This
\ncontinued till the year 1930 whereafter they stopped having a member
\nof the plaintiffs’ families on the Board of trustees.  The plaint contains
\nvarious details to show and establish the right of the plaintiffs to
\narchakship of the temple and the right to a share in the offerings of the
\ndeity with which we are not concerned at this stage.  The fact relevant
\nfor our purpose is that vide a notice dated 21st September, 1994, the
\nplaintiffs’ services as archaks were terminated with which their right to
\nperform puja in the temple and to have a share in the offerings also
\ncame to be terminated.  The plaintiffs challenged the said notice as
\nillegal and untenable.  The plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that they
\nare hereditary archaks of the temple in question.  The said right to act
\nas archaks was in the nature of the property. A declaration was also
\nsought to have share in the offerings to the deity at the temple.  Further
\na declaration was sought that the order of termination dated 21st
\nSeptember, 1994 was illegal, void and contrary to the principles of
\nnatural justice.  Injunction was sought to restrain the plaintiffs from
\ninterfering with the rights of the plaintiffs in performing their duties as
\narchaks.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe are in the present appeal concerned with the pleas raised by
\nthe defendants- appellants in their written submissions to the effect that
\nthe suit was  barred under Section 50 of the Bombay Public  Trusts Act,
\n1950.  The trial court as well as the High Court have rejected this plea
\nraised by the defendants-appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\tA perusal of Section 50 of the Act shows that in matters referred
\nto or enumerated in the said Section, a suit is to be instituted after
\nobtaining the consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner as per
\nprovisions of Section 51 of the Act.  The learned counsel for the
\nappellants submitted that the claim of the plaintiffs in the plaint falls
\nwithin the ambit of administration of a public trust as admittedly  there
\nis a public trust with respect to the temple in question.  If the matter
\npertains to administration of public trust then the Charity
\nCommissioner comes into the picture and a Civil suit is not
\nmaintainable without compliance of Sections 50 and 51 of the Act.  The
\nreal question is whether the present suit is a suit pertaining to
\nadministration of a public trust.  In response to this question, the
\nlearned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the preamble
\nto the Act which provides “an Act to regulate and to make better
\nprovision for the administration of public religious and charitable
\ntrusts in the State of Bombay”.\n<\/p>\n
  From this Preamble it is apparent that the main object of the
\nAct is to regulate the administration of public trusts.  The question is:
\nWill this extend to regulating the right to perform worship in the
\ntemple?  The right asserted by the plaintiffs in the plaint is claimed as
\ntheir families’ personal\/private right.  Whether they are entitled to
\ncontinue as archaks on hereditary basis is a private claim of the
\nplaintiffs.  This right has nothing to do with any public functions of the
\ntrust or administration of the trust.  Thus according to the learned
\ncounsel for the plaintiffs,  Section 50 of the Act is not attracted at all.
\nIn support of the submission that the right claimed by the plaintiffs is
\ntheir personal right  which is an enforceable  civil right, the learned
\ncounsel relied on Rajkali Kuer vs. Ram Rattan Pandey<\/a> [ 1975 (2) SCR
\n186 ] wherein it was observed “that religious offices can be hereditary
\nand that the right to such an office is in the nature of property under
\nthe Hindu Law is now well established.”  In the said judgment, this
\nCourt has relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court
\nwhile observing as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t“That religious offices can be hereditary and that
\nthe right to such an office is in the nature of property
\nunder the Hindu Law is now well established.  A Full
\nBench of the Calcutta High Court in Manohar vs.
\nBhupendra [AIR 1932 Calcutta 791] has laid down
\nin respect of Shebaitship of a temple and this view
\nhas been accepted by the Privy Council in two
\nsubsequent cases in Ganesh vs. Lal Behary [(1936)
\nLR 63 IA 448] and Bhabatarini vs. Ashalata
\n[(1943)LR 70 IA 57].  In a recent judgment of this
\nCourt reported as The Commissioner, Hindu
\nReligious Emdowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra
\nThirtha Swamiar<\/a> [(1954) SCR 1005] this view has
\nbeen reiterated and extended to the office of a
\nMahant.  On the view that Shebaiti is property, this
\nCourt has also recognized the right of a female to
\nsucceed to the religious office of Shebaitship in the
\ncase reported as Angurbala vs. Debabrata<\/a> [(1951)
\nSCR 1125], where the question as to the applicability
\nof Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act to the office
\nof Shebaitship came up for consideration.  On the
\nsame analogy as that of a Shebaiti right, the right of
\na hereditary priest or Pujari in a temple must also
\namount to property where emoluments are attached
\nto such an office.”\n<\/p>\n
Reliance was also placed on Ram Rattan, through Lrs. Vs.
\nBajrang Lal and ors. [ 1978 (3) SCC 236] wherein while dealing with
\nthe question whether hereditary office of Shebait is immovable
\nproperty, it was noted that :\n<\/p>\n
“The question then is whether the hereditary office of
\nShebait is immovable property.  Much before the
\nenactment of the Transfer of Property Act a question
\narose in the context of the Limitation Act then in force
\nwhether a suit for a share in the worship and the
\nemoluments incidental to the same would be a suit for
\nrecovery of immovable property or an interest in
\nimmovable property.  In Krishnabhat bia Hiragange
\nvs. Kanabhat bia Mahalbhat etc. [ 6 Bom HCR 137]
\nafter referring to various texts of Hindu Law and the
\ncommentaries of English commentators thereon, a
\nDivision Bench of the Bombay High Court held as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
\tAlthough, therefore, the office of a priest in a
\ntemple, when it is not annexed to the ownership of any
\nland, or held by virtue of such ownership, may not, in
\nthe ordinary sense of the term, be immovable property,
\nbut is an incorporeal hereditament of a personal
\nnature, yet being by the custom of Hindus classed with
\nimmovable property, and so regarded in their
\nlaw”\n<\/p>\n
It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the reliefs
\nclaimed in the present suit do not fall in any of the clauses of Section
\n50 of the Act.  There is no allegation of breach of trust; no declaration
\nis sought that any property is a property belonging to a public trust.
\nThe right to archakship is an individual and personal right enforceable
\nunder ordinary law; nor any direction of the court is sought for
\nadministration of the public trust.  The plaintiffs have never sought any
\norders of the court regarding administration of the trust.  To illustrate
\nthe point our attention was drawn to Sri Kallagar Devasthanan vs.
\nThiruvengadathan [ AIR (30) 1943  Madras 222].  In this case the
\nquestion was about the competence of Civil Court to entertain a suit.
\nFather of the plaintiffs in this case was a hereditary archak of a temple.
\nThe plaintiff was adopted by the mother after the death of his father.
\nThe trust  did not recognize the plaintiff as an archak.  The plaintiff
\nfiled a civil suit challenging the action and he being not allowed to be
\narchak of the temple.  Objection was taken about the maintainability of
\nthe suit.  Reliance was placed on Section 73 of the Hindu  Religious
\nand Endowments Act by the defendants in support of objection
\nregarding maintainability of the suit.  The said Section had provision
\nsimilar to the one under consideration in the present case.  The
\nfollowing observations are relevant for the present purpose :\n<\/p>\n
\t“If the words “administration or management”\n<\/p>\n
used in sub-clause (3) of s.73 have been employed with
\nreference to the “religious endowment” as defined in
\nthe Act and this is what is stated in that sub-clause, it
\nappears to be clear that they could not possibly be
\ntaken to cover or include the case of a dismissal of an
\narchaka of a temple.  The administration or
\nmanagement must be with reference to the “religious
\nendowment,” i.e. with reference to the property
\nmentioned in the definition and not with respect to the
\ndismissal of an archaka.  The suit to set aside his
\ndismissal relates to a personal right and as long as
\nthere is no question relating to the administration or
\nmanagement of the endowed property, the suit cannot
\nbe held to have been barred under that section.”\n<\/p>\n
This was also a case in which right to archakship was claimed
\nand it was held to be a private personal right which had nothing to do
\nwith administration or management of the trust and the suit was held to
\nbe maintainable in a civil court.  In the case in hand
\nrespondents\/plaintiffs are trying to establish their hereditary right to
\nact as archaks in the temple in suit.  This has nothing to do with
\nadministration of the trust.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhat is to be seen is  the relief the plaintiffs are seeking from the
\ncourt.  First of all, they are seeking a declaration about their
\nhereditary right as archaks of the temple.  This right is claimed in their
\npersonal capacity as a family of archaks who have been performing the
\nfunctions of archaks since the day the temple was established and the
\ndeity was consecrated.  It is different matter whether ultimately the
\nplaintiffs’ contention is accepted by the court or not.  Surely, the
\nplaintiffs are entitled to have their claim examined by the court.  If they
\nfail to establish their claim, they will be out of the court.  However, if
\nthey succeed in establishing the claim they will be entitled to the
\ndeclaration sought.  They cannot be non suited at the threshold unless
\nthe suit is expressly barred by any statute.  We have seen the provision
\nof Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act relied upon by the
\nappellants-defendants.  The said section does not cover a suit of the
\npresent type.  Analogy has been drawn of Section 92 of the Code of
\nCivil Procedure while considering Section 50 of Bombay Public Trusts
\nAct.  Both provisions are in the nature of representative suits which
\npertain to public trusts and protection of public interest in the trusts.
\nIn the present case, there is no public interest involved.  The only
\ninterest is that of the plaintiffs and their families.  The right of
\narchakship is claimed on the basis of inheritance.  It is a hereditary
\npersonal right which they want to establish.  The right is purely of a
\nprivate nature.  We are of the view that Section 50 of the Bombay
\nPublic Trusts Act is not attracted at all in the facts of the present case.
\n\tWe have seen the object of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
\nAppropriately the Act seeks to regulate and make better provision for
\nadministration of public religious and charitable trusts.  Such trusts
\ncater to things of public interest, i.e .things which concern large
\nsections of public.  Unless such trusts are properly administered  public
\ninterest will suffer.  Therefore, matters affecting administration of such
\ntrusts are covered under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
\nThis situation is somewhat similar to suits under Section 92 of the Code
\nof Civil Procedure.  These suits are suits in representative capacity and
\npertain to matters of public interest.  In contrast the suit which has
\ngiven rise to the present appeal is a suit to establish an individual right.
\nThe plaintiffs claim that they are hereditary archaks of the temple since
\ntime immemorial and are entitled to exercise this right which cannot be
\ntaken away from them.  No public interest is involved. Public is not
\nconcerned whether A acts as an archak or B acts.  Such a suit,
\ntherefore, cannot be covered by Section 50 of the Act.  Law is settled on
\nthis aspect as per various  judgments of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn  Raje Anand Rao vs. Sham Rao and ors. [(1961) 3 SCR 930],
\nthe dispute had arisen in view of dissatisfaction with the management
\nof a temple which was an endowment for the public.  A suit under
\nSection 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed.  A scheme was
\nframed for the management of the temple.  The right of pujaris as a
\nhereditary right  was not affected under the scheme.  Therefore, some
\nof the pujaris who were not parties to the suit and were not, therefore,
\nheard,  made a grievance of this fact.  The matter came upto this court.
\nAn amendment of the scheme by the District Judge without hearing the
\npujaris was also put in issue.  However, it was held that the fact that
\nthe pujaris were not parties to the suit will not take away the
\njurisdiction of the District Judge to modify the scheme, if the
\nmodification is with respect to administration of the trust and if it has
\nnot affected the private rights of the pujaris.  A suit under Section 92 of
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure  being a representative suit  binds not only
\nthe parties thereto but all those who are interested in the trust.  The
\nscheme was framed for the management and administration of the trust
\nand it did not affect the hereditary right of the pujaris to conduct the
\npuja.  Thus this judgment makes it clear that the right of the pujaris to
\nconduct puja is their private right and does not fall in the category of
\nsuits under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
\tOur attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the
\nrespondents to some other judgments holding  the right to perform puja
\nin the temple as a private right of the pujaris or archaks  and the same
\ncannot be defeated by invoking section 50 the Bombay Public Trusts
\nAct or Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  We need not refer to
\nall the judgments in view of the fact that the law on this point is well
\nsettled.  We only refer to the latest judgment of this court in
\nSahebgouda (Deceased) vs. Ogeppa and<\/a> ors [ 2003 (6) SCC 151].
\nThis case  pertains to a suit for declaration of Pujaris’ Pujariki right of
\nperforming puja.  The plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the
\ndefendants from interfering with the aforesaid right.  Objection was
\ntaken about the maintainability of the civil suit in view of the provision
\nof Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.  However, the objection was turned
\ndown holding that the reliefs claimed in the suit do not come within the
\nambit of Sections 19 or 79 of the Act which gave jurisdiction to the
\nAssistant Charity Commissioner to decide certain issues like existence
\nof public trust or whether a property is a trust property.   In this suit
\nbrought by the plaintiffs to establish his right of archakship  the only
\nrelief claimed was  a declaration regarding the right of the plaintiffs-
\nappellants to function as hereditary pujaris  or for pujariki rights   in
\nperforming puja in the temple and consequential decree for injunction
\nfor restraining the respondents from interfering with the aforesaid
\nrights of the plaintiffs.  The facts of this case are somewhat similar to
\nthose of the case in hand.  It was held that the case was clearly out of
\nthe purview of the barring provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
\nWe are in respectful agreement with the view taken in this judgment.  It
\nis held that the present suit is not barred by provisions of the Bombay
\nPublic Trusts Act.  Accordingly, no interference is called for with the
\njudgment under appeal.  The appeal is without merit and is hereby
\ndismissed. Since the trial of the suit on merits has been already
\nsufficiently  delayed, the trial court may dispose of the suit on priority
\nbasis as directed by the High Court in the impugned judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005 Author: A Kumar Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5641 of 2004 PETITIONER: Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors. RESPONDENT: Shivaram & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/07\/2005 BENCH: B.P. Singh & Arun Kumar JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-22T20:41:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-22T20:41:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4079,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005\",\"name\":\"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-22T20:41:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-22T20:41:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005","datePublished":"2005-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-22T20:41:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005"},"wordCount":4079,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005","name":"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-22T20:41:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vinayaka-dev-idagbunji-ors-vs-shivaram-ors-on-28-july-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vinayaka Dev Idagbunji & Ors vs Shivaram & Ors on 28 July, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=160879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}