KAILASH CHAND Vs. BHUPAL NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants appeal. In the suit which gave rise to this appeal the plaintiff alleged that the temple in which the deity of Bhuteshwar Mahadeoji Maharaj is installed is situate in old plot No. 47 which corresponds to the new plot No. 76. According to the plaintiff this tem ple was constructed by his ancestors. There after a common ancestor Sri Man Nath be came the sole owner of the temple and re ceived the total offerings. He had three sons, Bal Nath, Gulab Nath and Nand Nath. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to half share in the offerings made in the said tem ple. This suit was contested by the appel lants, who denied the various allegations made by the plaintiff and disputed the right of the plaintiff to receive the offerings made in the said temple. It was alleged by the defendants that out of the old plot No. 47 of 1872 twelve plots were carved out in the year 1901 which included the plot No. 76. The temple of Bhuteshwar Mahadeoji Maha raj was constructed in plot No. 76 which ac cording to the defendants corresponds to the plot No. 1649.

(2.) THE trial Court decreed the suit Against that decision the defendants pre ferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The defendants have now come to this Court in second appeal. By an order dated 23rd September 1972 this Court remitted three additional issues to the appellate Court below for fresh findings thereon. The appellate Court below has returned its findings on those issues. The defendants appel lants have filed objections to those findings.

(3.) IT was next urged that the plain tiffs have no right to receive offerings. It was argued that the offerings were made to the deity and as such they became the pro perty of the deity installed in the temple and as such they became the property of the said deity. In support of this proposition the learned counsel referred me to certain ob servations made on page 194 of a book captioned as "The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts" by B. K. Mukherjea, third edition. The relevant paragraph on which reliance has been placed reads as fol lows: