BRINDABAN Vs. RAM LAKHAN LALJI AND MAHADEOJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiff No. 2 is the Sarbarakar of the plaintiff No. 1 and for the removal of the defendant No. 1 from the management of the temple and the properties of the plaintiff No. 1 and the charge of the same to be handed over to the plaintiff No. 2 as the Sarbarakar of the plaintiff No. 1. The suit was filed by the idols Ram Lakhan Lalji and Mahadeo Ji through Rameshwar Bajpai as the plaintiff No. 1 and Rameshwar Bajpai as the plaintiff No. 2 against Brindaban, the first defendant, and Prakash Narain. The latter was impleaded as a pro forma defendant. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows :

(2.) ONE Jagannath was the owner of the properties in dispute. He had a brother by name Shyam Lal who had died in 1893 leaving behind a widow Smt. Kaushalya. Jagannath had a son Jwala Prasad who had pre-deceased him leaving behind his widow Smt. Narayani and a son Durga Prasad. Jagannath died in 1904. Durga Prasad also died a few days thereafter surviving him Smt. Savitri his widow. The three widows, Narayani, Savitri and Kaushalya executed a document in the year 1908, whereby they endowed all the properties, movable as well as immovable, in favour of the idols of Sri Ram Lakhan Lalji and Mahadeo Ji installed in a temple in one of the premises in question. In pursuance of that document of 1908. Smt. Narayani, and Smt. Savitri were to manage the properties so endowed during their lifetime. A scheme of administration was also laid down in that document. It appears that Smt. Savitri managed the affairs of the temple during her lifetime and, after her death in the year 1915, Smt. Narayani continued to manage the same. It further appears that in the year 1932, Smt. Narayani executed a will, whereby she authorised Smt. Siya Devi, Brindaban and others, mentioned therein, to act as Mukhya Dharma Kartas after her death. Smt. Siya Devi, on the demise of Smt. Narayani, entered into the management and continued to manage the properties till the year 1938, when she called Brindaban to look after the management along with her. Brindaban thus came on the scene and started with the management of the affairs of the temple along with Siya Devi.

(3.) THESE suits were tried together by the District Judge, Kanpur, who dismissed both of them. Appeals were preferred against those decisions, being first appeal No. 318 of 1947 and first appeal No. 426 of 1948. These two appeals were also disposed of by a common judgment by this Court on 20th December, 1961. The suit under Section 92, C. P. C. was held to be rightly dismissed on the finding that the trust was not a public trust and that Section 92, C. P. C. was not applicable. The suit of Brindaban was also held to have been rightly dismissed because his title had come to an end and it was not open to him to renounce his position as trustee and to repudiate the private trust in favour of the idols, which he had accepted and in which he had acted as a trustee for several years. Both the appeals were, therefore, dismissed. The plaintiffs-respondents then filed the present suit giving rise to this appeal. It may be mentioned at this stage that during the pendency of those two suits, a receiver was appointed and the properties in dispute were given in the custody of the receiver. During the pendency of the suit which has given rise to this appeal, the receiver continued to hold the possession of the properties under an order passed in the suit also. Thus, the properties in dispute are still in possession and custody of the receiver. The plaintiffs, in the present suit, alleged that as the defendant Brindaban had set up his own title in the properties in dispute, he was liable to be removed from the office of Mukhya Dharma Karta and/or trustee. It was also alleged that he had misappropriated and converted to his own use the properties of the trust which he was administering. It was further stated that Ram Charan, who was nominated in the deed of 1932 as Mukhya Dharma Karta having died, the plaintiff No. 2 was entitled to succeed to the office of Mukhya Dharma Karta, and was, therefore, entitled to the declaration sought for.