Jain Shwetambar Tirth Antariksha Parshwanath

SR No.: 006032
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jambuvijay, Balchandra Sahityachandra Hirachandra
Publisher: Siddhi Bhuvan Manohar Jain Trust
Publication Year: 2014
Total Pages: 92
Language: Gujarati
Classification: Book_Gujarati
File Size: 4 MB

Page 63

......... . ............... sh videat uirballei dem
Finally, an injunction is granted against the Defendants and all other Digambaris restraining them from interfering with the Swetambaris in the plastering of the idol so as to show the configuration on it of a waistband waist - tie and certain marks on the ears and palms, but the order directs that "these marks shall not be so bold and prominent so as to be offensive in any way, and they shall be shown with a light touch of plaster and as faintly as possible."
Both parties were dissatisfied, and the surviving plaintiff Swetambaris by notice of appeal and the defendant digambaris by cross objections to the decree, set up again before the court of the Judicial Commissioner. Central provinces their respective cases as originally pleaded. Before that court, however, as stated in its judgment, the Swetambari appellants no longer contested the right of the Digambaris, as declared by the decree of the Trial judge to worship in their own way and in their own time, according to the time-table, to which must be added the statement of their Counsel before the Board that they now make no claim to the collections of money and offerings made by worshipers during the periods of worship assigned to the Digambaris. The cross-objections of the Digambaris having failed to impress the court, the issue there, at the end of the day, resolved itself into the question whether the Subordinate judge was wrong in refusing to grant to the Swetambaris a declaration of their exclusive right of management. Counsel for the Digambaris finally contending only for the retantion of the joint management as decreed by the Subordinate judge. In the result the Appellate Court declared and held that the Swetambaris were, on the facts found, entitled to the exclusive management of the Temple, and that the plea of estoppel set up by the written statement had no reference to that position.