DANIRAIJI VRAJLALJI Vs. VAHUJI MAHARAJ CHANDRAPRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the suit for declaration filed by the respondent plaintiff against the appellant defendant that the defendant is not the adopted son of deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghnathji of Junagadh. The suit was filed in the court of the Civil Judge. (S.D.) at Junagadh, where it was registered as long Civil Suit No. 115 of 1958. The learned trial Judge has decreed the suit and, therefore, the original defendant, who claims that he is adopted son to the deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Raghunathji, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Short facts of the case are as under. The parties to this suit are the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharaj, the original founder of Suddh Adwit Pushti Marg. He flourished in Vikram Samvat 1535 which is equivalent to 1479 A.D. The family of the parties is called Vallabhkul. It is an admitted position that the descendants of Shri Vallabhacharya Maharai are working as Acharyas of various temples and Shrines in Gujarat and other places and are generally known as Goswamis, Acharyas or Maharajas. Their offices are known as "Gadia". These Goswamis are Vaishnavs by religion and they worship and idol of Lord Krishna.

(3.) One of these Gadis is at Junagadh. The last holder of Junagadh Gadi was late Shri Purshottamlalji Raghunathji, who has admittedly died on 11-9-55. The respondent-plaintiff, who is called Shri Vahuji Maharaj Shri Chandraprabha, is the widow of Shri Purshottamlalji Raghunathji. The record of the case reveals that after the death of Shri Purshottamlalji, there are some movement to bring someone else to the Gadi of Junagadh temple by adoption. The record further reveals that there was one Vrajnathlalji, who was carrying on some agitation against the plaintiff sometime after the death of Shri Purshottamlalji. Eventually this gentleman is found to have filed one suit against the plaintiff on 2-1-1947. That suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 2 of 1957. Ex. 59 is the certified copy of the plaint filed in that suit. The respondent plaintiff filed written statement to that plaint as found at Ex. 61 wherein she is found to have admitted the fact that she has adopted the appellant-defendant as a son to her deceased husband Purshottamlalji.