GOSWAMI SADANAND Vs. GOSWAMI INDRA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and appeal No, 67 of 1926 arise out of the same suit and will be decided by the same judgment.

(2.) The pedigree at p. 67 of the paper book of appeal No. 88 of 1926 will show how the parties are related be one another. It appears that either in the lifetime of Goklanandji, the remote ancestor or from before, there was established a temple in the holy city of Brindaban. The presiding deity of the temple is known as Mahaprabhuji and the temple itself is known as Singar Bat. The management of the temple, which is open to the public is in the hands of the descendants of Goklanandji. In course of time, the management came to be divided among the three descendants of Goklanandji, who had it appears, three sons, Nimanandji, Sundarnandji and Keshavanandji. The branch of Nimanandji, came to be known as the "Bari Taraf" or the oldest branch, The descendants of Sundaranandji came to be described as the middle branch and Keshavanandji's descendants came to be described as "Chhoti Taraf" or the youngest branch. In course of time the middle branch disappeared and the temple was left in the management of the remaining two branches. The original mode of management was that each branch managed the temple for a month. When the middle branch died away, the remaining two branches managed the temple for one and half months each. We are concerned, in this litigation, with the elder branch alone. The last male ancestor of this branch was Jadavanandji. He had four sons, two by each of his two wives. The plaintiffs are the two sons of his second wife, who married Jadavanandji after the death of his first wife. The first two defendants were the sons of the elder wife. Defendant 2 Rajendranandan died during the pendency of the suit. He is represented by his sons. The sons of defendant 1 Sadanand are also parties.

(3.) The plaintiffs case was that defendant 1 was in the management of the temple and its properties and was also the manager of the private properties of the parties. Sadanand had become dishonest in his intentions and the plaintiffs did not like that he should continue to manage the property. On these allegations the plaintiff sought the partition of the property. He mentioned that the plaintiffs aunt Mt. Thakomani (originally defendant 3) was not entitled to any share because she had become a recluse. The lady denied this statement and claimed a third share in the property. She, however, died pending the suit and we are no longer concerned with what would have been her share in case of partition. The main defence in the case has been put forward by defendant 1. His case was that certain of the immovable properties in suit were temple properties, that certain others were the joint properties of the parties, that as regards items 1 to 7 and 11 and 13 at p. 8 of the printed record and items 1, 3, 9 ,13, 17 and 18 at p, 12 of the printed record were his separate property, having been acquired by him out of his separate funds. Defendant 1 denied that he was in possession of any movable property belonging to the parties. Defendant 1 also urged that he alone was entitled to the worship of the idol and the right to worship could not be delegated to the plaintiffs.