MURTI SHRI SINHWAHINI DEVI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the Plaintiffs whose suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court, however, the appellate Court declared the title of the suit property in favour of the Appellant No. 1, Deity and dismissed the claim of the Plaintiff No. 2/Appellant No. 2 for a declaration as Sarvarakar of Plaintiff No. 1, Deity/temple.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 1 is the Deity of Sinhwahini Devi, Sinhwahini Mandir, Rajapara, Kanker and Plaintiff No. 2/ Appellant No. 2 claims to be the Sarvarakar of Plaintiff No. 1. The following reliefs were claimed in the suit:

(3.) The suit was filed on 11-4-1992 on the pleadings inter alia that the idol of Sinhwahini, being the Plaintiff No. 1, is a juristic person having been installed in the temple of Sinhwahini situated at Rajapara, Kanker. The said Deity was consecrated and installed by the erstwhile Ruler of Kanker State Shri Komaldeo as his Kul-Devi (family Deity) by constructing the temple at Rajapara. After his death, the legal heirs of the erstwhile Ruler continued to worship the Deity on the occasions of Ram-Navami, Dashehara, Deepawali and other special occasions and on rest of the days the temple used to be closed and the general public were not allowed to enter the temple. Thus, it was a private temple of the erstwhile Ruler, which was thrown open for the public in 1985 by the present head of the royal family, namely, Maharajadhiraj Shri Uday Pratap Deo. The Deity possesses 30.00 acres of land at Village Banspattar and an area of 211 square meters on Sheet No. 13, Plot No. 15, at Rajapara, Kanker on which the temple has been constructed. According to the Plaintiffs, the property was looked after and managed by its Sarvarakar Sunder Singh, Padum Singh and Pannalal, who are the ancestors of Plaintiff No. 2 Laxminarayan. Pannalal died in 1985 and thereafter Plaintiff No. 2 was appointed as Sarvarakar by the followers and worshippers of Plaintiff No. 1, Deity and since then Plaintiff No. 2 is performing the job of Sarvarakar. The Tahsildar, Kanker illegally entered the name of Collector, Bastar as Manager of the agricultural lands in the year 1974-75 without informing Plaintiff No. 1, whereas the Collector, Bastar has never taken any interest in the affairs of the temple. The Collector, Bastar has never been appointed as Manager by Plaintiff No. 1. Plaintiff No. 2 moved an application before the Additional Collector, Kanker for entering his name as Sarvarakar, which was rejected on 10-7-1990 and an order was passed to declare the temple as Public Trust. The said order or registration of Public Trust is illegal and void.