RADHEY SHYAM Vs. KAYASTHA HITKARINI SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22/12/1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS respondents filed a suit against defendant Radhey Shyam for declaration, possession, injunction and damages for use and occupation, with the averments that plaintiff No. 2 is a temple of Thakurji Shreeji, Anna Poornaji and Mahadeoji, situated at Jaiti-ki-kothi, Chandarwaja, Moti Katla Bazar, Jaipur and there is a land beneath it measuring 5 bighas. One Sadaram Mushraf, Kayastha by caste purchased a well and the said 5 bighas of land, for which a patta was granted by the then erst-while State of Jaipur for the purpose of constructing temple of Mahadeoji and Annapurnaji which was accordingly constructed. Shri Sadaram handed over possession of the aforesaid land and building to Panchan Biradari Kayasthan Mathur Chowkri Ram Chanderji, a committee of Kayasthan constituted by Kayastha inhabitants of Chowkri Ram Chanderji, Jaipur and since then the property remained in continuous possession, charge, control and management of the said Panchan Kayasthan and they also got constructed a temple, building and also managed the agricultural land attached to the temple which formed part of the grant. The said committee used to appoint Pujaries, arrange Bhograj, held functions and made constructions, additions and alterations and installed the diety of Thakurji Shri Anna Poornaji in the said temple. It is further averred that Panchan Kayasthan upto to appoint Pujaries for Sewa Pooja on their passing examination arranged by the Charity Department of erstwhile State of Jaipur. Shri Ghanshyam was first appointed as Pujari of the diety by the Panchan Kayasthan when he was found suitable and approved by the Mauj Mandir. After the death of Ghanshyam, Shri Chotey Lal was appointed as Pujari. After his death, Shri Ram Gopal was appointed as Pujari vide order dated 17. 1. 1935 and he performed Sewa Pooja of plaintiff No. 2 under the direction, control and management of Panchan Kayasthan. After Ram Gopal passed away, Shri Mohan Lal was appointed as Pujari. When Mohan Lal died, his son Radhey Shyam, defendant came to be appointed as Pujari in 1961 by the Panchan Kayasthan. The Panchan Kayasathan vide its letter dated 1. 12. 1964 transferred the management, rights and title of the temple and the properties to the plaintiff No. 1 and since then the temple of Thakurji Shri Anna Puranaji and Shri Mahadeoji is being managed by the plaintiff No. 1 and the rights which vested in Panchan Kayasthan and Sadaram now vest in the plaintiff No. 1. The defendant applied to the Dharmarth Department that the amount of Bhog Rag and for light be paid to him, which was allowed.

(3.) IN assailing the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, Mr. N. K. Joshi, appearing for the defendant appellants has vehemently contended that despite finding to the effect that there is no documentary proof as to the handing over possession of the temple and its properties by Sadaramji to Panchan Biradari Kayasthan, the trial Court has fallen into error in holding that the said temple and its properties were given to Panchan Biradari Kayasthan. The said finding, according to Mr. Joshi, being based on surmises and conjectures and contrary to the evidence on record is liable to be reversed. It has been argued that defendant has been in continuous possession of the suit property and he has rebuild, renovated and rejuvenated the entire property. According to him there is ample evidence that defendant was not only the Pujari but also the Shebait of the temple. However, the learned trial Court has erred in ignoring the entire evidence in this respect.