STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SHRI SWAMI VISHOKANAND BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This appeal arises out of the decision of the Addl. District Judge. Bikaner in a suit filed by Swami Someshwaranand as Chairman of Sri Dhuninath Guruji's Public Trust, Bikaner. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction and recovery of amounts. Following issues were framed:

(2.) WHILE deciding issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the respondents in their claim have based the case on a document published in a case in 1899 in the Central Jail, Bikaner Press. A list was got prepared by Maharaja Shri Bheron Singhji Saheb. He got this prepared under what circumstances and in what manner has not been established. Whether there is any order to prepare the list is not established on record. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that merely because it has been published by the Central Jail, Bikaner it cannot be said to be document pertains to the Government functioning. An Urdu book has been filed on record which is private publication yet published by the Govt. Press. No original of Ex. A/1 has been filed. There are no witnesses who have ever seen the original of this document. Apart from this the trial Court has given consideration to the fact that the State Government has not been maintaining this temple. Only Rs. 1800/ - were used to be paid to the Poojari whereas the temple expenses were to the tune of Rs. 9500/ - PA. There is a stone inscription ("Shila Lekh") which recites that during the time of Maharaja Shri Surat Singhji, the temple was constructed by Shri Dhuni Nathji. In a history book that pertains to the history of Bikaner, it has been no iced that the temple has been constructed by Dhuninathji during the life time of Maharaja Surat Singh which is known as Panch Mandir, which is the temple in dispute. The then Devasthan Commissioner who was the master of ceremony in the Bikaner State has deposed that the temple was not directly managed by the State though some grant was given to it and thus, issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the respondents.

(3.) EVEN after the cessation of the State of Bikaner, for the first time the Devasthan Department has made Budgetary Notification for the temple in the year 1979 Thus, it has been held by the trial Court that the Mandir was managed by the disciples of Dhuninathji. Further by simply giving some amount for the maintenance of the temple it can not be said that the temple is owned by the State Government because by that time the State used to give grant to many temples. The writing on the copperplate which is available on record states that the property has been dedicated to Dhuninathji and progeny of the King will not interfere with it. The progeny of the King meant its successors also. The property belonged to the Trust which is the successors of Dhuninathji and in that view of the matter the trial Court decreed the suit in terms that the temple was owned by Dhuninathji which later on vested in the Trust and the temple is not dependent on the State.