THAKUR GOVIND DEOJI BIRAJMAN Vs. SUSALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' second appeal from the decree of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Mathura dismissing their suit for the ejectment of the defendant respondent and recovery of arrears of rent from him as well as damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the premises in suit. The facts are these. The plaintiff is a deity, Shri Thakur Govind Deoji Rirajman, whose idol is established in a temple at Barsana in the district of Mathura The suit was filed in the name of the deity but the plaintiff was described as under the management of Nand Ram and others who were styled as managers (Mohatiman) of the deity. They were also added in the array of plaintiffs. The defendant is one Susalli a tenant of the deity. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff was the owner of a piece of land which was let out to the defendant Susalli on Rs. 2/- per month as rent: that he had not paid the arrears of rent for nearly four years; that he was guilty of causing nuisance and also fighting and abusing the shebait of the plaintiff-deity and keeping the accommodation dirty that his tenancy had been terminated by a notice dated 17-10-1952 and he was asked to vacate the accommodation and pay the arrears of rent that in his reply to the notice he repudiated the plaintiffs' title and therefore his tenancy was terminated under Section 111 (6) of the Transfer of Property Act and the present suit was filed. The defendant resisted the suit and denied that plaintiffs Nand Ram and Govind Saran were the shebaits of the deity as alleged by them or had any right to file the suit. He denied that he had been admitted to tenancy by them. He alleged that they were neither the Mohaliman nor the pujaris of the plaintiff deity but merely paid servants. According to him, the temple in which the plaintiff-deity had been established was the subsidiary of another temple in Vrindaban where the same deity was worshipped and the trustees of the Vrindaban temple were the pujaris and managers of the temple at Barsana. The defendant further alleged that his ancestors had been granted a permanent lease about 70 years ago by the trustees of Vrindaban temple and since then his family had lived on the land.

(2.) IT may be noted that according to both parlies the deity of the temple at Barsana and the Vrindaban temples is one and the same--namely, Thakur Govind Deoji Birajman. The defendant did not challenge the title of the deity to the land occupied by him, and also admitted that he was a tenant, but he denied that the plaintiffs Nand Ram and Govind Saran were the pujaris or managers of the Barsana temple, and he claimed rights under a lease obtained from the trustees of the Vrindaban temple, who according to him were also the managers of the subsidiary temple. The disputes between the parties was not with regard to the title of the deity which was admitted, but the status of the other two plaintiffs and their right to eject the defendant and recover rent from him. Both the sides led evidence. The plaintiffs produced certain entries in the revenue records in which their ancestors were described as shebaits while the defendant produced two deeds under which the plaintiffs' ancestors were, according to him, appointed by the managers of the Vrindaban temple as their paid servants to look after the temples at Barsana. The trial court held that Nandram and Govind Saran were the pujaris of the Barsana temple and competent to file a suit for the ejectment of the defendant and recovery of rent from him. IT also held that the defendant was a tenant of these plaintiffs. Accordingly it decreed the suit for ejectment and recovery of rent. On appeal the learned Civil Judge disagreed with the trial court with regard to the status of the two plaintiffs or their capacity to file the suit on behalf of the deity. He held that the Barsana Temple was managed by the trustees or managing committee of the Vrindaban temple and the defendant derived his rights as a permanent lessee from them. According to him, the plaintiffs had no right to represent the deity, and their suit was incompetent. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs who have come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) I cannot accept this argument. In the first place, the plaintiffs never claimed that they had been appointed pujaris by the trustees of the Vrindaban temple and their case was that their ancestors became pujaris when the lemple itself was founded. They denied that the temple at Barsana was the subsidiary of the Vrindaban temple. This case was rejected by the lower appellate court and the plaintiffs now want to fall back upon ah alleged agreement filed by the defendant himself as a part of his case But the defendant filed it to show that the plaintiffs were not shebails but mere servants of the managing committee of the Vrindaban temple. Mr. Gopi Nath wanted me to interpret the terms of the document filed by the defendant so as to make the plaintiffs the shebaits But the precise nature of the status of the plaintiffs under this agreement was a question of fact which could be determined by evidence, and the onus was on the plaintiffs to prove facts to rebut the interpretation placed on the document by the defendant They led no evidence for the simple reason that they denied any connection with the managing committee of the Vrindaban temple and claimed an independent status for themselves. In the absence of this evidence, I cannot accept the plaintiffs' version of their rights and status under a document filed by the defendant as a part of this case. The position would have been different if the plaintiffs had admitted that they derived their title from this document and led evidence in support of their version that it conferred the status of shebait on them. The learned Judge accepted the evidence of the defendant in support of his version that the plaintiffs' status was not that of worshippers or pujaris.