BALBAM Vs. DURGALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs suing on the authority the panchas of the Hariyana Gaud Brahmin community of Indore from the judgment of dismissal delivered by the Civil Judge in a suit for the removal of the defendant, a pujari or shebait, and the framing of a scheme, filed with, the sanction of the Advocate-General under section 92, C. P. C. The suit was also framed on the alternative-the necessity of which will presently appear- that in the event of the defendant being found to be not a trustee or shebait but just an appointed pujari-servant for his removal on account of improper conduct and the claiming of the temple as his own property. It was dismissed on different grounds, primarily on that the particulars of the foundation of the temple were not clearly ascertainable, and further the defendant's father and brother having openly claimed to be the full owners and not the pujaris as long ago as in 1933, they had prescribed title to themselves and accordingly the suit was barred.

(2.) THOUGH the arguments have been very lengthy, the questions for consideration in this appeal are comparatively simple; (1) the house which had been converted into the temple, having been purchased by the panchas in 1914, whether at any time the title was transferred to the pujari of that time, namely. Shrinarayan; (2) how far the broad lines are ascertainable of the process by which in 1914 and 1915 the house was adopted by constructional modifications for the purpose of a temple and an idol of Satyanarayan installed there; (3) the terms and conditions under which Shrinarayan was put in charge and possession of the establishment.

(3.) EARLY in 1914 the panchas purchased this building for a consideration of Rs. 500 mentioning in the sale deed itself that it was being acquired for the construction of a temple of Satyanarayan and for arranging for the worship of that idol. This was on 5-3-1914, the panchas taking possession immediately. The original deed has not been produced by either party but a certified copy from the registry has been filed as Ex. P/2-A. Actually the plaintiffs alleged that while putting the pujari in charge, all the connected papers and presumably the sale deed also, were made over to him. Subscriptions were collected at about that time and the sum of Rs. 500 which was at the first instance paid by one of the members of the community was later on recouped out of the subscriptions. From the same source presumably came the other expenses such as those for the reconditioning of the building from a residence to a temple by the building of platforms, entrances and the like, the acquisition and transport of the idol-it is said-from Jaipur and its installation with the usual ceremonies that must have cost some money. Naturally, after this lapse of time no details either of the total expenses of those on individual items, except of course the purchase of the building, have come to us. The subscriptions too we are not told have been raised exclusively from the Mariana Brahmin community; we cannot be certain, but it is quite likely that generally they came from the Hindus of the locality Marianas and non-Marianas alike. This much is certain and it is not in the statements either of the defendant or his witnesses that any part of the expenses came from Shrinarayan himself. Still there is an alternative defence averment of benami, and a pleading that Shrinarayan made the temple out of his own earnings. He came on the scene at about Baisakh Sudi 3, Samvat 1971, let us say, sometime in April 1914 within a month or so after the purchase of the building, the date according to him of the first direction or orders to him issued by the panchas. Then onward it is quite likely he was associated with the work of reconditioning, bringing the idol and arranging for the installation. In fact one of the witnesses on the defendant's side goes so far as to say that he brought the idol from Jaipur; though as evidence this statement cannot be verified, it is not unlikely that the pujari-designate was sent to Jaipur or whichever other place it was from where the idol was to be brought. It is equally likely that the same pujari assisted in the ceremonies that followed resulting in the final installation. The whole process should have taken some time; but we note that by the end of that financial year (1914-15) or immediately after this the pujari was named in the municipal record as the person in possession of the temple.