Receiver Cannot Replace Management Committee Prescribed Under 1904 Temple Agreement” – Allahabad High Court Laments Century-Long

Misuse of Judicial Process in Dauji Mandir Dispute 
 Allahabad High Court Declares Unbroken Judicial Receiver Control Over Mathura’s Dauji Mandir for Over a Century as ‘Classic Misuse of Judicial Process’ and Revives Original Temple Governance Model. In a significant judgment delivered on 21 March 2025, the Allahabad High Court, while dealing with an unusual century-old temple management dispute from Mathura’s famous Dauji Mandir (Shri Thakur Baldeo Ji Maharaj Temple), ruled that the temple’s management must be conducted strictly as per the registered agreement of 1904, which created a Seven-Member Committee elected by six ‘Thoks’ (family groups) of the temple’s Sevayats. 
 Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, lamenting the continuous litigation over temple control and appointment of Receivers since 1924, held: 
 
“This is a classic case of misuse of judicial process to usurp and manage the temple property of Dauji.” 
“No judgment or order can be passed excluding the agreement or which is against the provision of the agreement.” 
 The Court stressed that all parties — including the petitioners claiming to be trustees — were disregarding the binding Trust Nama of 02.09.1904, instead relying on a compromise decree of 1924 which had appointed a Receiver only as a temporary measure in case of a deadlock. 
 Court Rejects Trustee Claims Based on Succession, Emphasizes Original 
Agreement Made No Provision for Inherited Control 
 The case arose out of litigation concerning the removal of a Receiver appointed in 2019, which led to competing claims from parties who claimed to be legal heirs of the original 1923 suit parties. However, the Court decisively rejected these hereditary claims. 
 Justice Agarwal held: 
 “The concept of legal representative in the Management Committee is alien to the initial agreement which is binding upon all the Pandas/Sevayats of Dauji Temple.” 
“What transpires from the present case is that parties... claiming on the basis of law of inheritance/succession have been appointing their persons as Receiver of the temple and... ousting all the Sevayats and Pandas from the judicial arena.” 
 The Court clarified that under Clause 5 and 7 of the 1904 Agreement, if any member of the Management Committee dies or refuses to work, a new member must be nominated by his Thok. If not done within three months, the remaining members were authorized to appoint someone from that Thok. No concept of succession or hereditary control was envisaged. 
 “Compromise Decree of 1924 Was Never Intended to Last Eternally” – Receiver Appointments Were Only Temporary Measure During Deadlock 
 In Suit No. 94 of 1923, a group of Pandas had challenged the management of the temple by successors of the original committee members, alleging mismanagement. That suit ended in a compromise decree dated 15.10.1924, wherein Babu Baldeo Bihari Lal, an advocate, was appointed as the Receiver of the temple. 
 The Court noted: 
 “The intention of the compromise entered does not reveal that Receiver would continue to operate in the temple for eternity.” 
“It was only in a case of deadlock that a Receiver was appointed pursuant to compromise arrived in the year 1924.” 
  However, the position of Receiver continued for over 100 years without any effort to revive the Seven-Member Committee model prescribed in 1904, turning a temporary remedy into a quasi-permanent administrative mechanism. 
“Receiver's Role Is Exceptional, Not the Rule” – Court Criticizes Judicial Passivity Over a Century 

 The judgment took a strong view of the failure of successive courts over 100 years to restore the temple’s governance to its rightful path: 
 “No court considered the agreement executed between the Pandas/Sevayats on 02.09.1904… that the legal heirs/representatives of members of Management Committee would not succeed.” 
 It condemned the continued appointment of Receivers based on majority votes of successors to the 1923 litigants, saying that this approach ignored the collective rights of the now 734 families (up from the original 145) who are the real stakeholders. 
 “The agreement is the genesis of the entire dispute which has stemmed from 1923 onwards… The plaintiffs therein had solely and entirely relied upon the agreement of 1904 and had claimed their relief relying upon it.” 
 Conclusion: Court Orders Return to 1904 Governance Model, Ends Judicial 
Usurpation of Temple Management 
 The Court held that: 
 The agreement of 1904 is the only binding document governing the temple; 
 The concept of trusteeship by succession is invalid; 
 
The Seven-Member Management Committee must be constituted strictly as per the agreement, from the six Thoks of 734 Pandas/Sevayat families; 
The role of Receiver is residual and applicable only when no Committee can be formed. 
Justice Agarwal’s concluding remarks set the tone for future temple litigation: 
“Receiver is only appointed when all the measures fail and to protect the property the court is left with no option.” 
 

Date of Decision: 21 March 2025