DIGAMBAR JAIN MANDIR PARSHWANATHJI Vs. VISHNU PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil Second appeal by the plaintiff in an eviction suit, which was decreed by the learned trial court, but the first appeal of the defendant respondents, legal representatives of the original tenant Lalita Prasad was allowed and the suit was dismissed.

(2.) THE suit property, which is described in para 8 of the plaint and is part of house bearing Municipal No. 762, described in para 3 of the plaint, is situated in Rasta Dariba-Pan, Chowkri Ramchandraji. One Kishanlal Pandya son of Ganeshlal Pandya was the owner of the house described in para 3 of the plaint. Under a registered will dated i 1. 9. 42, the said Kishanlal Pandya beque-sthed the entire rental income of the house for the worship of Mandir Shri Vijay Ramji Pandya situated at Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Mandir), and directed his adopted son Prabhulal to recover the income and to spend it over the worship of the aforesaid 'mandir' and one temple situated at Govind- garh. It was also directed under the Will (Ex. 13) that the rental income from the house was also to be utilised in doing necessary maintenance of the house. THE appellant Panchayat Shri Digambar Jain Mandir Parshwanathji (soniyan), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Panchayat Jain Mandir) is a registered society under the Rajasthan Society Registration Act. Prabhulal adopted son of Kishanlal and other managers of the 'mandir' gave the management of the 'mandir' to Panchayat Digambar Jain' under their letter dated May 22, 1957, and the 'panchayat Digambar Jain' in its meeting dt. 28. 7. 57 accepted the same. THEreafter, under a registered gift deed dated 21. 3. 59 (Ex. 3) Prabhulal adopted son of Kishanlal Pandya gave the suit house to the Mandir and the gift was accepted by the Secretary of 'panchayat Digambar Jain' under whom the administration of the 'mandir' had already vested.

(3.) BECAUSE the finding of the learned trial court that the suit premises are reasonably and bona fide required by Panchayat Digambar Jain9 for running its school 'bal Niketan' was not challenged before the first appellate court, and, therefore, this finding of fact has become final. That apart,'bal Niketan' is being run in the premises of 'digambar Jain Mandir", and looking to the number of students, which has been increasing from year to year, those premises are not sufficient for the school Bal Niketan', and, therefore, the finding of fact that the suit premises are reasonably and bona fide required for 'bal Niketan' cannot be disturbed in the second appeal.