KUNDAN Vs. KANAHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant petitioner Kundan on the one hand and the plaintiffs respondents Kanahya, Nand Ram, Shiv Lal and Man gat Ram and the defendant respondent Daulat Ram on the other, are, rival claimants to the office of pujari of an idol known as the Deota Bathindlu installed in a temple in village Panjyali Sub Tehsil Suni. Nika Ram and five other defendants are the kardars or managers of the temple, and the Deota has also been impleaded as a defendant.

(2.) THE cause of action for this suit, instituted on 11 1 1950, was that about two years previously on 14th Jeth 2005 B. the kardars appointed the defendant petitioner as pujari of the idol. The plaintiffs alleged that the kardars had no right to do so inasmuch as they (the plaintiffs) and the pro forma defendant Daulat Ram, brother of the plaintiffs Kanahya and Nand Ram, had the exclusive right to hold the office as hereditary pujaris and as the defendant petitioner was an illegitimate son and therefore unfit to hold the office. The plaintiffs therefore prayed for an injunction perpetually to restrain the defendant petitioner from officiating, and the six kardar defendants from permitting the defendant petitioner to officiate, as pujari of the idol, and to restrain all of them from interfering with the plaintiff's right to perform the duties of the office.

(3.) SOME of the kardars supported the plaintiffs and others the defendant petitioner, who was the main contesting defendant. The defence plea was that the two families of the plaintiffs respondents and the defendant petitioner held the office jointly until the death of the defendant petitioner's cousin Ram Saran, that when Ram Saran died the defendant petitioner was a minor and his own brother Khayali officiated as priest of an idol in another village and that the plaintiffs therefore got an opportunity since then of exercising the right singly. It was further pleaded that by an unanimous decision the kardars and the, representatives of the public restored the defendant petitioner on 14th Jeth 2005 B. to his rightful place as pujari of the idol which had been usurped by the plaintiffs. The plaint allegations with regard to the illegitimacy of the defendant petitioner and the agreement dated 9 4 1924 A. D. about the land were traversed.