RAM Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal brought against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Alwar, dated 31-8 60 ordering that defendant Shri Ram shall be removed from the office of the Pujari of Shri Daooji's Temple situated in Bazaz Bazar near Zenana Hospital at Alwar and he shall hand over charge of his office to the plaintiffs, the trustees of the temple. The learned District Judge further directed that the possession of the temple and its property marked red in the site plan shall also be delivered by the defendant to the plaintiffs and further plaintiffs shall receive possession of all the articles mentioned in list Ex. 27, except ornaments and Mukuts, from defendant Shri Ram.

(2.) THE Temple in question is said to be a big one. Its description including the ships and residential apartments attached to it is given in para 2 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, who claimed to be the trustees of this temple appointed in pursuance of a scheme prepared under section 92 Civil Procedure Code by the District Judge of Alwar, the temple was built by one Gatru Matru about 125 years back. One Gopalji was put incharge of the temple and for three generations the same had been managed by Gopalji's family; the last manager-cum-Pujari being one Shiv Narain. It appears that as Shiv Narain and his ancestors had mortgaged some shops and other apartments of the temple from time to time and this led to certain insolvency proceedings in the course of which some shops as well as other apartments came to be sold in the course of insolvency proceedings, some representatives of the worshippers, brought a suit in the court of the District Judge at Alwar on 151-1938, after obtaining the requisite sanction of the Government Advocate of the ex-Alwar State. This suit was dismissed by the District Judge, but on appeal in the High Court of the State it was ordered that a Scheme be framed and new trustees be appointed for the temple. THEre was a further appeal to the Rajendra Shasan, which was the body analogous to the Privy Council, and by its order dated 9 4-45 the Rajendra Shasan, that is, the Maharaja of Alwar in Council confirmed the decree of the High Court. THEreafter the District Judge framed a scheme and appointed a Board of Trustees, consisting of five members, for the custody and management of the temple and its estate on 3-1-47. In the course of their management the trustees filed some suits for possession of the temple property against the alienees and were successful in obtaining possession of some shops. It further appears that after the formulation of the scheme the trustees wanted to take possession of the property which remained with Shri Ram defendant, but the delivery of possession was resisted. It was for this reason that the plaintiffs, the trustees, instituted the suit for the removal of the defendants and for possession of the temple property.

(3.) I may now turn to the cases referred to by the learned counsel.