BANSIDHAR SHARMA DEVAGYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.11.1977 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur City (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the trial court dismissed suit No.71/1974 (86/1981) filed by Shri Banshidhar Sharma, who died during the pendency of the suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit in the trial court wherein a prayer was made that the defendants may be restrained from interfering or in any way disturbing the management and affairs including Seva Puja and Bhograg of the temple of Thakurji Shri Mahadevji and Thakurji Shri Laxmi Narainji and the properties in possession of the plaintiff. Besides this, other relief was also claimed.

(3.) The plaintiff that the Government of Rajasthan or any of its Department had got no right whatsoever to interfere and intermeddle in the plaintiff's management of the affairs including Sevapuja and Bhograg of the said temples of Shri Mahadevji and Shri Laxmi Narainji as the same belonged to him and are the properties of the plaintiff and his ancestors, under absolute and complete gift in which the dedicators did not keep any rights in themselves and the same are properties of the plaintiff and he is the 'Mahant' and 'Shebait' of the said temple. The State Government has no right to deprive and detain the income of the said shops and he is entitled to claim accounts. The plaintiff further averred that some portion of the premises of the temple is occupied by the Telephone, Education, Water Works Departments for which separate steps are being taken by the plaintiff. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the order dated 02.07.1958 was not a Government order and has no force of law to cancel the previous order dated 21.01.1955 which was passed in the capacity of trustee. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is the 'Shebait' and 'Mahant' of the temple. The defendants were bent upon taking possession of the temple by dispossessing him and therefore, they were to be restrained.