LALIT KISHORE Vs. LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is an old temple of Shri Jagannathji in Jaipur city, the particulars of which have been given in paragraph 1 of the plaint and site plan Ex. 1. On the right hand side is the "nij mandir" of the main abode of the idol, while towards the left is a well and behind it there are residential quarters. A portion of the residential premises, in the front part of the building, just behind the well, is admittedly in the occupation of Gheesilal who has been examined as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs. This Gheesilal was once discharging the duties of "pujari" and the portion occupied by him has been shown in green chalk. THERE is no dispute about it. The plaintiffs instituted their suit for possession of the rest of the premises on the ground that the entire building and the temple were founded by their ancestors and the ancestors of the proforma defendants Nos. 2 to 7 who also appointed "pujari" for the "seva puja" of the temple. In support of this contention, the plaintiffs made a reference to certain documents executed by the "pujaris" in favour of their ancestors and pleaded that Smt. Chandri, widow of Lachhminarayan, was the last "pujarin". She died on Jeth Bad 30, Smt. 2012, and the plaintiffs felt aggrieved because, thereafter, defendant Lalit Kishore started performing "seva puja" and took possession of the building as well as the movable property of the temple without any authority. According to the plaintiffs, Lalit Kishore made certain unauthorised alterations also in the premises, started using the electric current indiscriminately, obtained a water connection and started tethering his cows in the temple which caused obstruction to the worshippers. They also pleaded that the defendant was not performing "seva puja" properly and had established his ownership on the temple in an unauthorised manner. Claiming, further, that they themselves were the descendants of the founders and the "shebaits" of the temple, the plaintiffs prayed for delivery of possession of the temple properties, removal of the alterations and the water connection, and the issue of a perpetual injunction restraning defendant Lalit Kishore from tying his cattle and making any alteration whatsoever in the temple property.

(2.) DEFENDANT Lalit Kishore denied the claim. He pleaded that the residential portion of the building had been built by his ancestors and that it was quite separate from the temple. The plaintiffs' claim regarding the appointment of "pujaris" was also denied and it was pleaded that Smt. Chandri was not merely a "pujarin" but a "shebait" of the temple. Further, the defendant claimed that he was performing "seva puja" from the time of Smt, Chandri, for which the charity department of the former Jaipur state allowanced him at the rate of Rs. 17/- per month with effect from May 2, 1942. The defendant claimed that he was "in possession of the temple for nearly 16 years as its "shebait". He denied that he had acted in an improper manner. Certain other pleas were also taken, but it is not necessary to refer to them for purposes of the present appeal because the case has been argued before me only with reference to the claim of the plaintiffs that they were the descendants of the founders of the religious endowment in question, and the counter-claim that defendant Lalit Kishore was the sole "shebait" of the temple and that the residential premises belonged to him as they had been built by his ancestors.

(3.) IT has therefore been satisfactorily proved that the religious endowment in question was founded by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and that the descendants of Sawainath were mere "pujaris".