NAGARWALI DEVI Vs. GIRJAPATI TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal in a suit for a perpetual injunction prohibiting the defendants from interfering with the possession of the first plaintiff deity, through the second plaintiff its Sarvarkar, over the temple and land of plot No. 871 of the village concerned with trees, and the amount of offerings in any manner whatsoever. The temple is a public temple. The land and the property belonged to the deity. The dispute between the parties relates to the shebaiti rights. The second plaintiff claimed to have been the Sarvarakar for the last about thirty-five years having been appointed, as such, by the earlier Sarvarakar, Laxmipati. According to the plaintiffs it was an ancient temple. The Sarvarakar also worked as the Pujari and arranged for the Rag Bhog, Dhup Deep and Pujan Archa of the deity. The offerings belonged to him, and. according to the custom of the endowment, the Sarvarakar nominated his successor during his lifetime or by will. Further according to the plaintiff's the first defendant was very clever and rich, and since his return from Bombay and taking up residence in the village, he had acquired control over the second defendant and wanted to forcibly acquire control over the land and the property of the deity and threatened to interfere with the performance of his duties as Sarvarkar of the first plaintiff by the second plaintiff, hence the suit.

(2.) The two defendants filed a joint written statement. They pleaded that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the answering defendant that the temple was very old and the ancestors of the answering defendants had been performing the Puja and managing its affairs since times immemorial, that the Pujari of the temple took the offerings and also the income of the property and that the temple never had a Sarvarkar. About the Pujari it was said that he was not appointed by any one, but a person of religious bent in the family became a Pujari and managed the temple. Laxmipati it was said, was never the Sarvarkar and never appointed the second plaintiff to be the Sarvarkar of the first plaintiff nor did he have any power to do so. On the other hand, it was said that Tarpati was the Pujari. After him, Laxmipati and Jainarainpati became pujaris and after them Girjapati was the Pujari and. during the absence of Girjapati, the second defendant worked as the Pujari and managed the temple. About the second plaintiff it was said that he was a very bad and infamous kind of man who had no concern with any Puja nor did he ever do any Puja in the temple nor was he ever the Pujari or Sarvarakar. About himself, the first defendant said that he never lived at Bombay for thirty years. The answering defendant again said that the second plaintiff was of bad and infamous character and because of that he lived separate from his father Jainarainpati who never allowed him, the second plaintiff to enter the temple. It was lastly said, that due to consolidation of holdings, there was litigation between the parties which had led to animosity, and, on account of that, the suit had dishonestly been filed to misappropriate the temple property.

(3.) From the father's name of the second plaintiff Heerapati, and of the first defendant Girjapati, it appears that both of them are the sons of Jainarainpati, the second plaintiff being the elder of the two.