JAGANNATH Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendants directed against the "judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Partabgarh (Camp Chittorgarh) end. inter alia, raises the question whether the suit was barred by the provisions of Section 29 of the raiasthan Public Trusts Act. 1959 (Act No. 42 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the "act".

(2.) THE suit was filed on 27-8-1962 by the Panch Mahesihwaris of Chittorgarh and it concerns a temple known as Shri Laxmi Narainii's temple situated at chittorgarh. It was for an injunction requiring the defendants Jagan Nath and laxmi Lal to hand over certain articles of the temple which were in their custody as Puiaris of the aforesaid temple and further refrain from performing the work of 'sewa 'pooia' in the temple. Stated in brief the plaintiffs' case was that the temple belonged to the Maheshwari community and was being managed through their Panch as. The latter had employed the defendants for performing the 'sewa Pooia' at the temple and for this the plaintiffs relied on certain agreements allegedly executed by the defendants. In view of the services the defendants were to receive the offerings of foodgrains (Patia) and what-evpr would be offered by the worshippers and visitors to the deity. The defendants-appellants contested the suit. They denied that the temple was of the Maheshwari Community or that Maheshwari Panchas had the au-thority to manage the temple affairs. They took the position that the temple wag a public temple where any Hindu could, as a matter of right, go for 'dar-shan'. They proceeded to say that the temple was constructed in the time of Maharana Udai singh of Mewar and some property had been endowed for its upkeep and the defendants' ancestors were appointed as Puiaris and since then the defendants had been acting as hereditary Puiaris and performing the Sewa Pooia' at the temple. The defendants thus denied the authority of the plaintiffs to remove them or to call upon them to deliver the properties of the temple to them or to refrain from performing 'sewa Pooia' at the temple.

(3.) ON 9-4-1965. Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, requested the learned District Judge to add the Commissioner Devasthan as a party to the case. This request of the learned counsel was not opposed by learned counsel for the defendants and accord-ingly the Court ordered that the Commissioner Devasthan be added as a defendant in the case. Accordingly, the Commissioner Devasthan was added as defendant No. 23 and he also filed the written statement. He too denied the claim of the plaintiffs that it was a private temple belonging to the maheshwari Community of Chittorgarh. He averred that the temple in question was a public temple and the plaintiffs were not entitled to manage the affairs of the same. According to him in the past it was the ex-Mewar State who had endowed the property to the temple and it was being treated as a public temple. He further proceeded to say that one Jasrai Bhoiak was constituted as a Pujari and muafi land was granted to him and it was the duty of Jasrai and his desce-dants to perform the 'sewa Pooja' at the temple. Apart from this a cash grant of Rs. 21/14/- was being made to the Puiaris Jagannath and Laxmi Lal for the 'sewa pooia'. Further this temple like other public temples of the State was looked after by the Government through the Devasthan Department. He referred to a claim one time made by the Maheshwari Community for the temple and this led to an inquiry in the year 1941. As a result of that inquiry though the temple was allowed to be managed by the Panch Maheshwaris it was held that it was a State temple. The Puiaris were to get the offerings for the services they were to render besides the enjoyment of the Muafi land granted by the State. This decision was given on 17-7-1947.