(1.) THESE are connected cases which can be conveniently disposed of by one judgment. Second appeal No. 8/58 arises out of a suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits instituted by respondents Nos. 1 to 9 against respondents Nos. 10 to 13 and Dhananjai appellant for a declaration that they are hereditary Pujaris of the Charbhuja temple at Bhilwara, for possession over the office and for past pendente lite and future mesne profits.
(2.) CONCURRENT findings of fact were arrived at by the courts below. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record I am satisfied that not only the findings of fact arrived at by the two courts below are not vitiated by any error of law, but are also abundantly supported by the oral and documentary evidence on record including the admission of the witnesses produced on behalf of Dhananjai appellant who alone out of the 5 defendants contested the suit.
(3.) IT may however be observed that the applicants claim to be in possession of the temple as managers. The plaintiffs do not claim possession as managers. They claim possession over the office of Pujari only as hereditary Pujaris of the temple. Delivery of possession of the temple will not amount to ouster of the applicants. But it is necessary to deliver physical possession over the temple to the plaintiffs as hereditary Pujaris to enable them to discharge their duties. In Smt. Bansi Devi Vs. Girdharlal (lo) it was held that a hereditary Pujari cannot be removed from the office of Shebait without the intervention of the court. As the members of the Maheshwari community have not obtained a decree of the court removing the plaintiffs from the office of hereditary Pujari they are not entitled to obstruct the latter in the performance of their duties as Pujaris. The executing court has ample power to deliver possession even against a person who was not a party to the original suit provided it is satisfied that the person offering resistance to delivery of possession has no bona fide claim.