CHAMELIBAI VALLABHADAS Vs. RAMCHANDRAJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by plaintiff sundarlal, s/o Manoharlal Brahmin claiming himself to be the Pujari and Shebait of a temple situated in Lohia Bazar Lashkar. The suit was brought by him as the next friend of the various idols of Ramchandraji, Seetaji, Laxmanji, etc. , eight in all. According to Sundarlal the temple where all the above idols are installed is a portion of a bigger area and the entire properties situated in the area, as shown in the map filed along with the plaint, belong to the said idols and constitute a public endowment, the same having been dedicated to the said idols for the up-keep of the temple and for carrying on their worship. According to Sundarlal he used to recover rent of the properties and deposit the same with the defendant who, on the insistence of the members of the Hindu Community of the locality, had utilized part of the funds lying in deposit with him in building a Dharamshala within that area. However, it is said that the defendant in recent years has begun to claim title to the properties aforesaid to deny that of the idols. A declaration was accordingly claimed on behalf of the idols that the entire properties situated in the area belong to the idols and are their property having been dedicated for the upkeep of the temple and for carrying on worship and that any claim of the plaintiff contrary to that of the idol was untenable.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant who denied the right of the plaintiff to file the present suit on behalf of the idols. It was denied that Sundarlal Brahmin who had brought the present suit as well as his ancestors had been worshipping the various idols as Pujaris. The claim put forward by Snndarlal to Shebaitship was denied. It was denied that the properties situated in the area indicated in the map had been dedicated for the up-keep of the temple and constitute public endowment and that Sundarlal and his ancestors used to recover rent therefrom. The deposit of the income of the properties as 'amanat MANDIR' was also denied. It was denied that the defendant constructed the Dharmashala out of the amount lying as AMANAT on public insistence as according to him no member of the public had any such right. It was claimed by the defendant that he is in possession of the properties in his own personal and private right and do not constitute a public endowment. It was also contended that the defendant is in possession of the property in his own right for the last 50 years and a suit for a mere declaration was incompetent. The plaintiff, it is said, should have filed a suit claiming a consequential relief of possession after paying ad valorem court-fees. The plaintiffs claim was, according to the defendant, barred by res judicata due to the decision given by the Gwalior High Court in a ease between the predecessor of the plaintiff and Mavasibaba a former Pujari. Bar of Section 92, C. P. C. was also put forward. On the basis of these grounds it was contended that the suit was incompetent.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings aforesaid the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-1. Whether Suudarlal had a right to file the present plaint on behalf of the idols ? 2. Whether the properties excepting the actual temple where the idols are installed described in para. 3 of the plaint constitute religious endowment ? 3. Whether the defendants are the trustees of the said property ? Whether the suit Is barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act? Whether the suit is within time ? Whether the suit is barred by tha principle of res judicata ? Whether the suit is barred by Section 92, C. P. C. ? Whether the court-fees are sufficient ? Whether the defendant is entitled to Rs, 1,000 as damages for vexations' character of the suit ?