(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs which arises out of suit for permanent injunction. This Court vide order dated 23-6-1993 had formulated the following substantial questions of law :-
(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal are that on land admeasuring 2.29 acres a Ganesh Temple is situate in city of Sehore. In respect of the land on which the temple is situate and the adjoining lands, erstwhile Nawab had granted a Sanad (Exhibit-P-1) dated 5-8-1945 in favour of the original plaintiff so that he can perform pooja in the temple and can maintain himself as well as manage the affairs of the temple from the income of the adjoining lands. Pursuant to the aforesaid grant, name of original plaintiff was entered in the revenue records as 'Maufidar'. However, defendants started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, in the suit relief of permanent injunction was sought.
(3.) Defendant No. 1(b) i.e. daughter of Gopal Das, admitted the claim of the plaintiff. However, defendants No. 1 (a) & defendant No. 2 contested the claim of the plaintiffs. In the written statement filed by them it was, inter alia, pleaded that one Chhoteram was pujari of temple in question which was built 300-400 years ago. After his death, one Hemraj and Krishnanand used to perform pooja in the temple. Hemraj had no son, therefore, during his lifetime he handed over the management of the temple to Kanhaiyalal and original defendant No. 1 (Gopal Prasad) alternatively for one year each. Hemraj executed a registered gift deed in favour of original defendant No. 1 by which management of the temple and possession of the adjoining land was handed over to defendant No. 1. Thereafter, Kanhaiyalal and Gopal Prasad perform pooja every alternate year. Kanhaiyalal as well as Gopal Prasad had no son. Gopal Prasad, therefore, adopted defendant No. 2, namely, his daughter's son vide adoption deed 13-9-1968. The original plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are entitled to perform pooja every alternate year.