RAMDAS BHAGAT Vs. KRISHNA PRASAD TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by plaintiff from a decision of the learned Sub. ordinate Judge of Gaya, dated 12 July 1938, confirming a decision of the Munsif of Gaya, dated 6 January 1938, dismissing the suit. For reasons which will presently appear, it is necessary to set out the allegations in the plaint dearly and in considerable detail. It is first stated therein that the plaintiff, Ramdas Bhagat, is the sole surviving member of a joint family and is in possession of the entire property of that family. One of the members of the family, the plaintiff's ancestor Jawahir Bhagat, founded and endowed a thakurbari in the town of Gaya and installed idols for himself and the members of his family. He appointed five persons as managers of the endowed property and one Gayadin Tewari as pujari, but no deed of endowment was executed. Later on, in 1907, the plaintiff's uncles Tulsi Bhagat and Ramchandar Bhagat and Gayadin Tewari (here the plaint is wrong: Gayadin Tewari did not join in the execution) executed a registered deed of endowment confirming the persons already appointed by Jawahir as managers and Gayadin Tewari as pujari (priest). One of the managers, Balgobind Ram, later dedicated a house for the benefit of the thakurbari but not in such a way as to alter the nature or status of the trust, which continued as a private and family charity with the accretion of the property dedicated by Balgobind Ram. It is next alleged (and this is important) that some time ago Gayadin Tewari died and his son, defendant 1 of the suit, took up the management of the affairs. Next it is alleged that though there were several trustees yet the thakurbari was managed in consultation with and under the orders of Jawahir Bhagat, Behari Bhagat and Tulsi Bhagat and this arrangement continued up to the death of the last of them.

(2.) Later, when the plaintiff came of age, he went on performing worship in the thakurbari but defendant 1 and also defendants 2 and 3 (a second son and a grandson of Gayadin) kept him in the dark regarding the thakurbari management. Gradually, however he learnt of all the circumstances and in 1934 he came to know that all the trustees, except Balgobind Ram, had died more than 10 years before and that the property of the thakurbari was solely under the control and will of defendants 1 to 3 and they had been spending the entire income on their personal necessities treating the thakurbari as their own property and wasting the thakurbari properties; and Balgobind, the only surviving trustee, failed to oppose them being in collusion With them. The plaintiff, as heir of the founder and proprietor of the thakurbari, wanted it to be efficiently managed and that the work should be done according to the intention of the founder.

(3.) With that intention he filed a petition to get his name recorded in place of Tulsi Bhagat in the papers of the Municipality, but on this defendants 1 to 3 became very much annoyed and induced defendants 4 to 7, who are connected with them and are their creatures, to file an objection petition in the mutation case claiming to be themselves trustees. The plaintiff's petition was rejected and the names of defendants 4 to 7 along with that of Balgobind Ram, who was then living, were recorded as trustees. The plaintiff then dismissed defendants 2 to 3 from the post of pujari and appointed another pujari but the defendants to the suit interfered; hence the necessity for the suit.