BALKISHAN DASS Vs. PARMESHRI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the two plaintiffs Parmeshwari Das and Sant Ram as trustees in respect of property known as Mandir Shri Nanidev Kalla Dhari Ji Maharaj in Bahawal-pur State for rendition of accounts against their co-trustees Bal Kishan Das and Gosain Jamna Das, hereafter referred to as the first and second defendants. In this suit were also impleaded Bhiwani Das who is now dead and Sardul Singh, as defendants Nos. 3 and 4. The fourth defendant in effect supports the plaintiffs' suit. The suit has been decreed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Amritsar, and a final decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,87,123/8/3 with full costs has been passed against the first defendant. As the Court did not consider the plaintiff-trustees to be fit enough to receive this sum the defendant has been directed to make a deposit of it in some bank. Interest on the decretal amount has to be charged at the rate of 4 1/2% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. The second defendant on the other hand has been asked to make restoration of certain articles which he brought from the Mandir at Bahawalpur and in default, to make a payment of Rs. 10,000/ -. The second defendant appears to be content with the decree passed against him and has not preferred any appeal. The first defendant alone has come in appeal to this Court.

(2.) IT may be pointed out that instead of the first plaintiff Parmeshwari Das and the third defendant Bhiwani Das who are now dead two new trustees have been appointed and they are implead-ed as respondents in this appeal.

(3.) BY a will executed on 14th of May, 1938 and registered a week later on 21st of May, 1938 (Exhibit P. 3), Gosain Brij Mohan Das, gaddi nashin of Mandir Shri Namdev Kalla Dhari Ji Maharaj, at Bahawalpur, then sixty years old, made a testamentary disposition with regard to movable arid immovable properties of three Mandirs in Bahawalpur city known as Mandir Kalla Dhari Ji Maharaj, Sanwal Shah Ji and Mandir Gopi Nath Ji, one Mandir known as Kalla Dhari in Multan city and one Mandir known as Mandir Kalla Dhari in Bindra Ban, Mathura district; argicultural lands and shops in Bahawalpur city; agricultural and residential lands in Multan; residential houses situated in Amrit-sar and movable property like ornaments, clothes and utensils relating to Thakar Ji Maharaj. During his life-time the testator was to remain the exclusive owner of this property. In case the testator was unable to liquidate the debt due from him, Rai Sahib Bishan Das, Sub-Registrar, Parme-shwari Das, plaintiff No. 1, Sant Ram, plaintiff No. 2, Mool Chand and the second defendant Gosain Jamna Dass were appointed trustees to alienate any property to liquidate the liability. The trustees were also left the option of taking any other proceedings with the object of paying off the debt due from the testator. The properties were to vest in Shri Thakar Ji Maharaj of the Kalla Dhari Mandir, situated at Bahawalpur, who was to be regarded as the full owner of the property, and were to remain as waqf Dharmarth in perpetuity. The income of the property was to be spent in connection with the ceremonies and festivals relating to the said Shri Thakar Ji Mahafaj. The second defendant Gosain Jamna Dass was declared to be the successor as gaddi nashin of the testator but he was not given any right to alienate the property. The five persons named as trustees were directed not only to pay the debts but to take charge of the future management of the property left and owned by the testator. The income of the property was to be utilised for the benefit and improvement of the temples. Out of the five trustees, Rai Sahib Bishan Dass was to act as President during his lifetime and after his death the surviving trustees could appoint a President by a majority of votes. Likewise, the surviving trustees by a majority could appoint trustees in place of those who died or those who could not fulfil their duties as such. The choice of trustees was limited to persons who were 'vishnu Dharmi Hindus". The trustees were also given the power to appoint additional trustees. All the trustees, except the second defendant, were not to get any remuneration for their work.