Ugamsingh & Mishrimal v. Kesrimal & Ors,.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

26 November 1970

Case no.

0

Facts

The dispute originated when the respondents (1 to 9) filed a suit against the appellants and others, asserting their right to worship the idol of Adeshwarji in the temple at Paroli. They claimed that the temple was constructed and the idol consecrated by followers of the Digambri sect. Tensions escalated in December 1949 when the appellants allegedly attempted to convert the idol to that of the Swetambri sect by adding artificial eyes. A temporary settlement was reached, but the respondents contended that the appellants were planning to permanently alter the idol and restrict their worship rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, a decision upheld by the District Judge and the High Court.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

The appellants argued that the dispute was not of a civil nature and that the trial court's judgment was flawed because it relied on the judge's own inspection rather than the evidence presented. They contended that without establishing ownership of the temple or the idol's affiliation with the Digambri sect, no injunction could be granted. The court addressed these arguments by emphasizing that the issue at hand was indeed civil, as it pertained to the rights of worship, which are maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Respondent Arguments

The respondents maintained that they had a rightful claim to worship the idol as it was consecrated according to the Digambri sect's practices. They argued that any attempt by the appellants to alter the idol or its worship would infringe upon their established rights. The court supported this position, recognizing the civil nature of the dispute and affirming the respondents' rights to worship without interference.

Precedents considered

The court referenced precedents such as
and
, which established that disputes regarding rights of worship are civil in nature and can be adjudicated in civil courts. These precedents reinforced the court's decision to uphold the respondents' rights.

Legal principles

The court considered the legal principle that the right to worship is a civil right, which can be protected through injunctions. It emphasized that the nature of the dispute was not merely about rituals but about the fundamental rights of worship, which are recognized under civil law.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The court reasoned that the attempts by the appellants to alter the idol and its worship practices would effectively deny the Digambri sect their right to worship. The court found that the trial court's findings were justified based on the evidence and the nature of the dispute, rejecting the appellants' claims that the issue was not civil in nature.

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The court ordered that the respondents' rights to worship the idol of Adeshwarji be protected, and any alterations to the idol or its worship practices by the appellants were prohibited.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of recognizing civil rights in matters of religious worship. It establishes a precedent for similar disputes, affirming that the right to worship is a civil right that can be protected by the courts. The case highlights the judiciary's role in resolving conflicts between different sects within a religion, ensuring that the rights of worshippers are upheld.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)