SUKH RAMDAS Vs. RAM MILANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation pertaining to a temple is being carried on for the last two decades unmindful of the real fact that temples and the property appurtenant thereto do not belong to any individual and such institutions are created for worship, attaining solace and mental peace. The temple in question, known as Thakardwara of Maharaj Ram Chander Ji and properties attached to it, are situate at village Udhowala which place is said to be near to Jammu and this temple was created by Maharaja Partap Singh who attached 151 Kanal 12 marla of land situate in village Muthi with this temple where idols of Maharaj Ramchander Ji and Mata Sita Ji were kept.

(2.) Sukh Ramdas, plaintiff-appellant, brought suit for declaration that he was chela of Mahant Khemdas and thus exclusively entitled to act as pujari in the abovesaid temple and to manage the entire property belonging to the temple, both movable and immovable, with consequential relief of prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from acting as pujaries in the temple and interfering with his management of the property. His case was that the temple was founded by Sadhu Bawa Bansidas and the abovesaid land was dedicated in favour of the temple by late Maharaja Partap Singh Ji as 'Maufi'. Idols kept in the temple were worshipped by people belonging to Sanatandharam faith of Hinduism. Bawa Bansidas acted as first Mahant of the temple who used to perform puja and was managing entire property of the temple. The founder of the temple also laid down the mode of succession to the office of Mahantship according to which the deceased Mahant was to be succeeded by a 'chela' duly appointed by him and he was succeeded on his death by his chela Bawa Khemdas who later on appointed him the chela according to the rites and ceremonies customary in such matters and also as a measure of abundant caution he executed a Will in his favour on 14-10-1967 registered on 16-10-1967. All the Mahants appointed from time to time acted as pujaries in the temple and managed the property belonging to temple consisting of garden, agricultural land and kothas built on it. Defendants 3 to 10 in possession of the land were either tenants or lessees under the temple. He being young in years his predecessor-in-interest. Bawa Khemdas had appointed Shakti Parkash defendant-respondent as his attorney who used to manage the property of the temple and this defendant in turn engaged the services of Ram Milandas, defendant respondent No. 1 as pujari in the temple at a monthly pay of Rs. 30/-. Bawa Khemdas died on 14-3-1969 leaving behind him as his sole heir entitled to succeed to the office of Mahantship of the temple. With the death of Bawa Khemdas, power of attorney issued in favour of Shakti Parkash stood automatically cancelled and further licence created in favour of Ram Milandas defendant revoked. In spite of his asking both the abovesaid defendants not to act as pujaries in the temple or interfere with his management of the property they declined to do so.

(3.) The suit was only contested by Ram Milandas, defendant-respondent. Other defendants did not choose to appear and contest the suit and as such case was ordered to proceed ex parte against them. Ram Milandas defendant No. 2 resisted the suit on various grounds. His plea was that the temple was not founded by Bawa Bansidas but it was founded by Bawa Mahant Ajudadas who was followed by Bawa Bansidas as Mahant. According to him the mode of succession was that only person being Tayagi, Malang, Nihang and Brahamchari, was entitled to succeed to a Mahant of the temple with the condition that he should have served the Mahant and well-versed in puja and management of temple property and further that he ought to have been declared as successor in presence of a congregation and largely attended meeting of Tayagies, Sadhus and Bawas wherein all the ceremonies took place. Bawa Khemdas called such congregation and meeting of Sadhus which was largely attended and he was declared as duly selected chela and his successor. He denied the execution of Will by Bawa Khemdas in senses as Bawa Khemdas was too old and was also not of sound mind to make a Will. He devoted his whole life in puja of the temple and management of its properties but the plaintiff never acted as pujari nor managed the properties during lifetime of Bawa Khemdas. His further plea was that the plaintiff being a minor was not entitled either to become a pujari or succeed to the temple, nor was plaintiff installed as successor of Bawa Khemdas.