Prathiba M. Singh, J
1. This hearing has been done through Video Conferencing.
CM APPLs. 14179-81/2021(for exemptions)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.
CM(M) 323/2021 & CM APPL. 14178/2021 (for appointment of receiver)
3. The present petition relates to the Mandir Shree Kalkaji and is a dispute amongst the various factions (baridaars) claiming rights for conducting the
puja sewa, share in the offerings and revenues from other moveable/immovable assets including teh-bazari rights, in relation to their shashmahi bari,
which comes every 12 years during the two Navratri periods.
4. A suit was filed by the Respondent in the present petition, in which a final judgment was passed by the Civil Judge-5, West District, Tis Hazari
Courts, New Delhi, on 28th October, 2014, wherein it was held as under:
“19. While deciding issue no.5 it has already been held that the females are entitled to perform pooja sewa at the Mandir Shri Kalkaji
and to receive offerings and tehbazari. Accordingly, late Smt. Bishan Devi, i.e., daughter of late Sh. Ram Swaroop and mother of defendant
no.23, had a right to perform pooja sewa and to receive tehbazari, offerings etc. by employing a deputy in this regard. After death of late
Smt. Bishan Devi, the said right was inherited by defendant no.23 being her son and, therefore, plaintiff has no right to realize the 1/61h
share of late Sh. Ram Swaroop.
In view of above said, it is held that plaintiff is not entitled for decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for. Issue no.6 is decided
accordingly.
20. It is already held while deciding issue no.5 and 6 that defendant no.23 inherited the right of realization of 1/6th share of late Sh. Ram
Swaroop in offerings and tehbazari, from his mother, who was daughter of late Sh. Ram Swaroop and, therefore, he is the heir of late Sh.
Ram Swaroop, in this regard.â€
5. The dispute is in respect of the heirs of late Mr. Ram Swaroop. The Petitioner is the Defendant No.23 in the said suit and his mother was late Mrs.
Bishan Devi. The Petitioner’s share was clearly determined to be 1/6th share in the judgment of the Trial Court dated 28th October 2014, and
after holding so, the suit of the Plaintiff i.e., Respondent No.1 was dismissed by the said Court. The Plaintiff/ Respondent No.1 is stated to have filed
an appeal against the said judgment dated 28th October 2014, before the District Judge, which is pending, however, there is no stay that has been
granted on the judgment passed by the Civil Judge.
6. The shashmahi bari was during the Dussehra Navratra period in October, 2020, as also the current bari during the navratras which commenced on
24/15th March and ends on 22/23rd April, 2021.
7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he is not being permitted to exercise his rights in the current bari because his mother, late Mrs. Bishan Devi,
being a woman, is being considered as a person who cannot exercise her rights qua the said bari, being a female heir. This is despite the judgement
passed by the trial court.
8. Mr. Thakur Sumit, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Respondent No.1 himself has filed applications for appointment of court
receivers before the Trial Court, however, both the applications are still pending. In the current bari also, the Petitioner, is not being permitted to
participate and take his fair share, which has been determined as 1/6th by the Trial Court, in the said bari. The Petitioner, accordingly prays for
appointment of a court receiver so that his rights qua the said bari are secured and it is ascertained as to how much money would be due to the
Petitioner, by virtue of his fair share.
9. On behalf of Respondent No.17 also, an application is stated to have been filed for appointment of court receivers. Further, it is also argued by Mr.
Chokkar, ld. counsel for Respondent No. 17, that Respondent No.1 has monopolised the entire bari by use of force and is not permitting any other
baridar to enjoy their bari and rights at the Kalkaji Mandir.
10. On behalf of Respondent No.16(i) i.e., Mr. Ashok Kumar, who is one of the legal heirs of late Mr. Narain Singh, Mr. Ravi Sharma, ld. Counsel,
submits that the entire dispute is between heirs of late Mr. Ram Swaroop and there is no dispute in respect of the other branches of the family. He
submits that the said branches can, however, file their accounts in order to determine as to what would be the share of late Mr. Ram Swaroop, which
can then be shared amongst the legal heirs of late Mr. Ram Swaroop.
11. On behalf of the Respondent no.1 firstly, it is submitted that the main counsel and his family is unwell. The ld. Counsel Mr. Mishra who appears
submits that his client would file the proper accounts before the Court. He further submits that the trial court judgement relied upon by the Petitioner,
finally only resulted in dismissal of the suit. The decree sheet was one of dismissal of the suit and not a decree recognising the Petitioner. Detailed
arguments can however be addressed only by the main counsel.
12. This Court has had the occasion of considering a similar case, in respect of various baridars in the Kalkaji Mandir, during the months of January
and February. Owing to the various issues relating to mismanagement at the Kalkaji Mandir, and the complete lack of any facilities for devotees, a
detailed order was passed on 5th February, 2021 in FAO 36/2021 titled Neeta Bhardwaj and ors. v. Kamlesh Sharma. In the said order, this court has
clearly held that women, who are legal heirs, would be entitled to exercise their bari and perform the puja rights. Further, this Court had appointed
receivers to take over the assessment of various donation boxes and the offerings which were being received at the temple, during the said bari, and
several directions were issued to the following effect:
“18. ….The Defendants, under the garb of being the male heirs have managed to retain control over the running of the temple and are
also currently appropriating all the offerings. Ld. Counsel for the Defendants submits that the Plaintiff would be given her 1/6th share, but
in reality, no share has been given to the Plaintiff. The offerings at the temple are substantial and there needs to be an account of the
collections. The giving of share to the Plaintiff cannot be at the whims of the Defendants, merely on the ground that they are male heirs and
the Plaintiff is a female.
…..
20. The following arrangement shall accordingly operate w.e.f. 6th February 2021:
a. In so far as the performance of the puja sewa w.e.f. 6th February, 2021 to 24th February, 2021 is concerned, the same shall now be
performed by Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj, who is the authorized nominee of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is permitted to appoint any other persons
along with Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj for the performance of puja sewa in accordance with the customs and traditions in the Kalkaji Mandir;
b. The pujari room shall be vacated by Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj and Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj with immediate effect. The said room shall be
occupied by Mr. Rakesh Bhardwaj, during the Plaintiff’s bari;
c. The hoardings in the temple precincts and on the donation boxes shall be immediately removed, under the supervision of the Court
Receivers.
d. All the donation boxes shall now be locked by the Court Receivers and the keys shall be retained with them. For the purposes of
identifying and properly securing the donation boxes, Ms. Manmeet Arora, the Local Commissioner shall assist the Receivers.
e. The donation boxes shall be opened only once everyday at the time fixed by the Receiver/s either late evening or in the morning.
f. The donation boxes shall only be opened in front of the Court Receivers, in the presence of two representatives of the Plaintiff and the
Defendants. The amount shall be counted as directed by the Court Receivers and 1/6th share shall be handed over to the Plaintiff’s
representative. The remaining amount shall be deposited in the bank account of the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, maintained at the
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch. The Receivers are free to finalise the modalities for counting of the offerings, and seek the assistance
of any persons as they may deem fit for the said purpose.
g. A full account of all the offerings being received until 24th February 2021, shall be filed before this Court.
h. All the CCTV cameras shall be made operational and the footage shall be in the custody of the Receivers. The CDs containing the CCTV
footage shall be handed over by the technician to the Receivers on a daily basis, without tampering the same in any manner.â€
13. The above-mentioned order was challenged before the Supreme Court vide SLP(C) No. 3017-3018/2021, wherein, the said order of this court was
upheld vide order dated 22nd February 2021. The Supreme Court held:
“2. The order of the Single Judge is well reasoned. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the impugned order is an interlocutory
order, it is wholly inappropriate for this Court to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution.
The petitioners are before the High Court where the suit is pending, where their submissions can be urged.
3. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.â€
14. The dispute between the various baridaars in the Kalkaji Mandir has resulted in multiple litigations being filed before the Trial Courts. In the earlier
petition mentioned above, i.e., FAO 36/2021, this Court has been informed that there are over 70 litigations which are pending in respect of the Kalkaji
Mandir. Various branches of families, and the various baridaars who are hundreds in number, keep filing applications/ proceedings before the trial
courts, which has resulted in enormous confusion and complete mismanagement at the Kalkajii Mandir. The baris are even auctioned and there are
purchasers who have bid for exercising the baris. Owing to this, this Court is already seized of the matter in FAO 36/2021, for passing appropriate
directions.
15. In the present petition, the share of Mr. Bishan Swaroop, who is one of the baridaars during the navratra period, is in dispute. There can be no
dispute about the fact that during the navratra period, offerings and the donations which are given at the Kalkaji Mandir are extremely high. This is
also clear from the reports received in the earlier petition where the Local Commissioner and the Receivers, who were appointed, have informed this
Court that during the navratra period, the footfall in the temple is quite large.
16. In view of this, it is prima facie clear at this stage, that Respondent No.1 seems to have monopolised the bari and the related rights, and is also not
giving any proper accounts qua the said bari. Further, Respondent No.1, admittedly, had himself moved for appointment of receivers, before the Trial
Court, which has not yet been considered by the Trial Court.
17. Accordingly, in the overall facts and circumstances of this case, considering their prior experience in assessing the donations and offerings etc., in
the Kalkaji Mandir, Mr. H.S. Sharma, Retd District & Sessions Judge (M: 9910384647) and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Advocate (M:9811418995), who
had earlier been appointed as Court Receivers, are again appointed as Court Receivers for the period till 22/23rd April, 2021.
18. The said two Receivers are permitted to visit the Kalkaji Mandir tomorrow i.e., on 17th April, 2021, in order to put locks on the donation boxes and
take all required steps to assess the offerings and donations as also the teh-bazari. The directions passed to the Receivers in order dated 5th February
2021 would apply mutatis mutandis for the current bari. Accordingly, the following directions shall also apply:
a. All the donation boxes shall now be locked by the Court Receivers and the keys shall be retained with them.
b. The donation boxes shall be opened only once everyday at the time fixed by the Receiver/s either late evening or in the morning.
c. The donation boxes shall only be opened in front of the Court Receivers, in the presence of two representatives of the Plaintiff and the
Defendants. The amount shall be counted as directed by the Court Receivers and 1/6th share shall be handed over to the Plaintiff’s
representative. The remaining amount shall be deposited in the bank account of the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, maintained at the
UCO Bank, Delhi High Court branch and shall be converted into an FDR on auto renewal mode, after the payment is made to the receivers
and other expenses are met. The fee of the receivers shall be paid out of the deposits made in the Registrar General’s account.
d. The Receivers are free to finalise the modalities for counting of the offerings, and seek the assistance of any persons as they may deem fit
for the said purpose.
e. A full account of all the offerings being received until 23rd April 2021, shall be filed before this Court.
19. The Receivers shall also determine as to who is currently running the bari and the manner in which the same is being run, and shall file a detailed
report to this effect, after the period of the bari is over on 22nd/23rd April, 2021.
20. The SHO P.S. Kalkaji shall render all assistance to the Receivers to comply with this order and also to maintain law and order. The Receivers
fees shall be fixed as Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.2,00,000/- for Mr. Sharma and Rs. 1,00,000/- for Mr. Ahluwalia). All the offerings and donations shall
henceforth be deposited with the Registrar General till 22/23rd April, 2021.
21. If the Receivers are unable to go to the Kalkaji Mandir on 17th April, 2021, due to the lock-down restrictions that have been imposed, they are
permitted to do carry out the directions on 19th April, 2021.
22. List on 10th May, 2021 along with F.A.O 36/2021.
