RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. GULAB RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') are Hindus and they applied to the Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh, for permission to institute a suit under Section 92, C.P.C., against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant'). The Advocate General by his order dated February 25, 1971, granted the permission. The Advocate General in his order observed as follows:-

(2.) The allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiffs were Hindus and were interested in public temples and the properties attached thereto and were filing the suit for themselves and as also representatives of the entire Hindu community at Haldwani. It was stated that there was a famous temple popularly known as 'Mandir Ram Chander', which has existed from times immemorial and the Hindu public of Haldwani and other places had been regularly going there to worship and offer prayers every day and particularly on festivals. The plaint went on to add that immoveable properties belong to the temple, which had been donated and constructed by the Hindu devotees from time to time. There followed the description of the properties. The plaint case was that the father and grandfather of the defendant had remained as Pujaris of the temple for puja, Bhog and Arti and added that the defendant was working as pujari on behalf of the Hindu public. It was asserted that for the last four or five years the defendant had been causing loss to the properties attached to the temple and had been appropriating the income and had started claiming the properties as his own. It was asserted that the defendant had neglected the work connected with Puja, Bhog and Arti in the temple. The instances of the alleged misconduct on the part of the Pujari were given. It was asserted that the defendant being only the Pujari of the temple, he could exercise no rights of management in respect of the properties belonging to the temple and his conduct disentitled him from continuing as pujari. The plaintiffs sought the following reliefs in the plaint:-

(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant the existence of the temple known as 'Mandir Sri Ram Chandra Ji' situate at Haldwani, district Nainital, was admitted. It was asserted that it had been founded by defendant's great grandfather, Pt. Gopalji Pujari, in the year 1832 as a private temple meant for his own use and that of the members of his family. It was, however, not admitted that the Hindu public of Haldwam and other places regularly went to the temple for worship and offer prayers every day and particularly on festivals. It was asserted that since the time of his great grandfather the members of the family were looking after the temple and the idols were installed by his great grandfather. It was claimed that the defendant and his ancestors were Shebait and Pujari of the temple and it was further asserted that they did not own their appointment to any one. It was asserted that since the temple was a private temple, the defendant or his ancestors were not required to keep any account or to give account to any one else of the income and expenditure of the temple. It was asserted that as the defendant was both Shebait and Pujari, the defendant had every right of management. It was then asserted that the suit under Section 92, C.P.C. was not maintainable. In this connection it was pointed out:-