AMAR NATH SHARMA Vs. BANKEY BEHARI JI MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS no.1 to 6 had filed the present suit for possession, damages and mesne profits. Plaintiff no.1 has been described as a deity installed in temple No.3209, Mohalla Dassan, Charkheywala, Delhi. Plaintiffs no.2 to 6 were the successors-in-interest of Pt.Gopal Saran Dass the original owner of the suit property. Defendant no.2 was a proforma party and also a successor-in-interest of Pt.Gopal Saran Dass along with plaintiffs no.2 to.6

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that Pt.Gopal Saran Dass had dedicated this property for a religious purpose. He had built a Shivalya and a Chhatari on the ground floor. Premises bearing No.3207, 3208, 3210, 3211 were the shops attached to this temple. Pt.Gopal Saran Dass died in 1878. His legal heir was Ganga Saran Dass the father-in-law of plaintiff no.2 and the grandfather of plaintiffs no.3 to 6 as also of defendant no.2. The temple was repaired and a new temple dedicated to Bankey Behari Ji Maharaj was constructed. Ganga Saran Dass appointed Pt.Makhan Lal as a pujari for conducting Sewa Puja. He was paid a sum of Rs.30.00 per month. He was performing the duties of the pujari; in this capacity he was allowed to use the first floor of the suit premises comprising three rooms and a bath rooms. On the ground floor the idols of the mandir were installed and the other movables were kept for storage. On the death of Pt.Makhan Lal defendant no.1 i.e. the<APL> Amar Nath Sharma </APL>was appointed as a pujari in place of Pt.Makhan Lal to perform sewa puja; he was also permitted to occupy the premises which were earlier in the occupation of Pt. Makhan Lal. Pt.Niranjan Lal Bhargava (who was the husband of plaintiff no.2 and father of plaintiffs no.3 to 6 as also defendant no.2 )died in February 1957 leaving behind the aforenoted legal representatives. Plaintiffs no.2 to 6 are looking after the affairs of the temple as trustees and managers. They have no personal interest in the mandir. The defendant no.1 was performing his duties in a careless manner; he was negligent; he has recently brought construction material on the premises without permission with a view to illegally convert the temple on the ground floor for his residential use. Vide notice dated 19.7.1972 the service of the defendant was terminated. He was asked to vacate the premises; he had not adhered to this request. Suit for possession and recovery of the articles of the mandir (as detailed in schedule A attached with the plaint) as also for damages and mesne profits had been filed.

(3.) TRIAL judge had framed the following seven issues: