GOKUL NATHJI MAHARAJ Vs. NATHJI BHOGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal against the decree passed by a learned single Judge of this Court allowing a Second Appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiff-appellants are represented by Dr. N. P. Asthana, but learned counsel for the respondent. Sri Harnandan Prasad, states that he has received no instructions from his client. The suit was filed by Shri Thakur gokul Nathji Maharaj, 'birajman' at Gokul through plaintiff 2, who claimed to be the owner oi the property in suit, but to prevent the defendant raising the question whether it was plaintiff 1 or plaintiff 2 who was the owner of the property it was said in the plaint that plaintiff 2 had joined plaintiff 1 also as a co-plain-tiff and the suit was, therefore, filed in the name of both the plaintiffs. The allegations in the plaint were that the land in suit belonged to the plaintiffs and one Dwarka bad his house on it that in the flood of 1924 the house of Dwarka was washed away and in 1933 the defendant took wrong ful possession of the materials worth Rs. 100/-lying on the site and built a Dharamshala thereon. The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs were for removal of the constructions made by the defendant and for vacant possession being given to them; an injunction to be issued to the defendant not to interfere in future with the plaintiffs' possession of the land; Rs. 100/- as damages for the price of the materials unlawfully used by the defendant; and for costs. The plaintiffs' claim for Rs. 100/-was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that it was not proved that the defendant had utilised any part of the materials of dwarka's house. The other reliefs were given to the plaintiffs.

(2.) IN appeal a learned single Judge of this Court held that plaintiff 1 was not a juristic person and could not own property, that Plaintiff 2 had no right of ownership and that mandatory injunction could not be granted because the suit was filed almost three years after the constructions were made. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.

(3.) IT has been urged by learned counsel for the appellants that as regards the first finding that plaintiff 1 was not a juristic person the learned Judge was clearly in error. The point was very carefully considered by the lower Courts and we must say they wrote excellent judgments and took great care in the consideration of all the materials placed before them. The temple in question is a very old one dating back to some year prior to 1640 A. D. According to the traditions prevailing in the locality one Shri Ballabhacharya flourished in the sixteenth century of the Christian era, He was a devotee of Lord Krishna and was held in great esteem by the people. He had two sons, one of whom died issueless but the other had seven sons. To these seven grandsons Shri Ballabhacharya gave seven idols as representing Lord Krishna of whom he was a 'bhakta'. These seven idols which were given to each grandson were installed by them in various parts of northern and western India. To the grandson, Shri Gokul Nathji was given the idol which was installed in Gokul in the temple known under the same name, i. e. , gokul Nathji. Grandson Gokul Nathji was himself a very pious man and a great devotee of Lord Krishna, so much so that some people started worshipping him as the incarnation of the Lord himself. Gokul nathji, however, used to worship plaintiff 1 as the idol of Lord Krishna, and some followers, instead of worshipping Gokul Nathji the grandson of Shri Ballabhacharya, worshipped the idol and held that the idol as well as Gokul Nathji and his descendants were the representatives of god. These two sects that grew up were known as the 'bharuchis' and the 'nimar Yas'. 'nimar yas' worshipped plaintiff 1, while the 'bharuchis' worshipped Gokul Nathji in his lifetime and after his death they worshipped his clothes, sandals, and such other things as were used by him and enshrined these articles of personal use in a temple.