GEETA MANDIR TRUST Vs. LATE DWARDA KAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Shri Geeta Mandir Trust, Kamla Colony, Bikaner and two of the trustees Har Bhagwan S/O Botha Ram and Anil Kumar S/O Ram Chandra against LRs. of late Sh. Dwarda Das, the pujari of the temple, who died on 20.9.2012 being aggrieved by the order dtd.12.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.418/2009 ­ Dwarka Das V/s Shri Geeta Mandir Trust and ors. whereby the learned trial Court in the suit for injunction filed by the respondent Dwarka Das, Pujari of temple trust known as Shri Geeta Mandir Trust at Bikaner, held that right to sue survives in the two sons of deceased Dwarka Das, namely, Rajendra Kumar and Basant Kumar and therefore, they deserve to be brought on record upon death of Pujari Dwarka Das on 20.9.2012.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners ­ Temple Trust, Mr. Abhinav Jain relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Pratapmaj Dharewa Dadabari Trust and Ganpat Das and ors. - SBCWP No.1404/2012 decided on 4.4.2013 submitted that the Pujari of the temple has no inheritable right and therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the right to sue survives in the sons of the deceased Pujari Dwarka Das and consequently, instead of dismissing the suit itself having abated, the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the sons of the deceased Dwarka Das had right to continue the suit in question, which was filed for injunction against the temple trust.

(3.) THIS Court in the case of Shri Pratapmal Dharewa Dhadabari Trust (supra) by a detailed discussion of legal position including previous decision in the case of Ram Gopal and ors. V/s Idol of Shri Radha Krishna Mandir reported in AIR 2007 (NOC) 900 (Raj.) has held that Pujari has no inheritable right of worship and therefore, in the absence of any inheritable right, right to sue cannot devolve upon the with legal heirs of deceased Dwarka Prasad. It would be relevant to reproduce para 14 to 16 of the said judgment for ready reference :