MOTI RAM Vs. MANDAY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaint, in the suit put of which this appeal arises sets forth that in Kasba. Khatauli, District Muzaffarnagar," there are two parties of Jains of the Digambari sect, namely, Vaishya Agarwal Bisas (to which the defendants belong) arid Vaishya Agarwal Dasas (to which the plaintiff belongs); that there are five Jain temples, and that all Jains of the Digambari sept; have an equal right to worship in them. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it is alleged that one of these temples is situated in Mohalla Kanungoyan, which was constructed by the plaintiff s ancestors while the rest of, the temples were constructed from the joint subscriptions of the whole brotherhood. In paragraph 3, the plaintiff alleges that he was the manager of the temple in Mohalla Kanungoyan, Khas, while the defendant No. 1 was the treasurer. In paragraph 4, it is alleged that a disagreement took place in Kasha Sardhana, and that thereupon the defendants, the Bisas, sought to bring pressure upon the Dasas of Khatauli that they should cease to have anything to do with the Dasas of Sardhana, and that because the Dasas of Khatauli would not follow the injunctions of the Bisas, the latter excluded them from, worship in the Jain temples in Khatauli. The plaint then goes on to refer to certain criminal proceedings which resulted in a kind of compromise that the plaintiff should institute the present suit for a declaration of his rights in the Civil Court. The plaintiff then asked for a declaration that he was entitled to manage the temple in Mohalla Kanungoyan and worship there.

(2.) By an amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff extended his claim to a right to worship in all the Jain Temples in Kasba Khatauli. The amendment is not without some significance because it is quite clear, after considering the evidence and circumstances of the case, that the plaintiff has either a right to worship in all the temples or in none.

(3.) It clearly appears that, the dispute is really a dispute between the Bisas on one side and the Dasas on the other. What the plaintiff really claims on behalf of himself and the other Daias is a right to worship in complete equality with the Bisas and the claim to the management of the temple in Mohalla Kanungoyan Khas is really of no importance. It was probably introduced to a large extent with a view to meeting an objection on the part of the defendants, that the question was purely religious matter and, therefore, not cognizable by the Civil Court.