KIDAR NATH Vs. MADHO SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal and Cross -Objection No. 4 of 1986 arise out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Regular First Appeal No. 150 of 1976, decided on 4th November, 1985, vide which the judgment and decree of the trial Court was partly allowed and after modification a new decree was passed containing conditions Nos. 1 to 15 incorporated in the last paragraph of the judgment. Kidar Nath Appellant has challenged the decree and judgment of the learned Single Judge through this Letters Patent Appeal and the Plaintiffs -Respondents have preferred the cross objections. The Letters Patent Appeal and Cross -Objections are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS -Respondents filed this suit against Defendant -Appellant for his removal from Mohitmimship of temple Thakur Dwara Shivala Adhwala situated at Patiala -Sanour Road, Patiala. The allegations made in plaint are: that the said institution is a religious and charitable institution and there are two temples therein; one Harjas Rai was the founder of the temple to which 85 Bighas and 6 Biswas of Agricultural land is attached, after the death of said founder mutation was entered in favour of his two daughters Mst. Hukmi Devi and Mst. Sampati Devi. These two daughters died and mutation was entered in favour of one Din Dayal, who was a Jamadar of Maharaja Patiala. After the death of Din Dayal Mohitmim the mutation was entered in favour of Kidar Nath Defendant -Appellant, residents of the locality and neighbouring villages as also the members of the community and collaterals and members of the family of Harjas Rai are worshippers of the deities and Murtis in the temple and they take part in the festivals and offerings and used to do prayer daily, it was open to the public prayers and offerings; Sadhus and Sants and members of the community and the family attended the temple on all important occasions and festivals; Defendant -Appellant was a Government servant posted outside Patiala on different stations including Chandigarh and Simla; he continuously remained out of Patiala for the last more than 20 years and recently he had been transferred to Haryana Government from where he retired during the pendency of the inquiry under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure; after retirement Defendant -Appellant is residing at Chandigarh; Defendant -Appellant closed the temple and did not allow the Plaintiffs -Respondents and the public at large, sadhus and Brahmins to enter the premises for the worship and prayer and to celebrate the important festival Defendant -Appellant also does not perform sewa dhupdip rather the temple has been locked and its building has almost fallen down and is in a dilapidated condition; Defendant -Appellant has converted the above temple and its agricultural land as his personal property and the vast income from the agricultural land is being used for his personal benefit and as a matter of fact he has constructed a house of his own; Defendant -Appellant was appointed Mohitmim on the condition that he shall perform sewa dhup dip and give all possible facilities to the pilgrims and that income of the land be spent on betterment of the temple but he does not do so; immovable property attached to the temple is always to remain the property of the temple and shall on no account be treated as the personal property of the Defendant -Appellant and income thereof shall not be used for his personal benefit and he was also required to maintain the accounts. The Defendant -Appellant earned about more than Rs. 4,000 a year from the agricultural land and he comes only to collect the amount and then goes back to Chandigarh. It is further alleged in the plaint that not even a single paise is being utilised for the construction and repair of the temple property and for its betterment. Thus, the Defendant -Appellant is said to have misappropriated the income of the temple and has committed a breach of the trust and the conditions attached thereto. With these allegations removal of the Defendant -Appellant from Mohtmim -ship is sought. Plaintiff -Respondent No. 1 claims to be the grandson of the founder of the temple and the Plaintiffs -Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are said to be worshippers of the deities and murtis but they are not allowed to enter in the premises of the temple.

(3.) OUT of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: