GOSWAMI PURAN LALJI Vs. RAS BEHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge of Mattra. As regards the Cawnpore property the appeal fails. As regards the Bindraban property I have came to the conclusion that the appellant is right and the plaintiff is entitled to succeed for the following reasons: (I will, for the moment, disregard the reasons given by the lower Court for thinking otherwise).

(2.) The property was dealt with by a deceased virtuous man who wanted to dedicate it to a certain idol. The deed of dedication is contained in the document dated the 15 May 1871. So far as the property goes with which this judgment is concerned, and in regard to which in my opinion the plaintiff is entitled to succeed, the general intention of the donor to be gathered from the language of the deed which is extremely difficult to follow because it appears to contain provisions inconsistent with one another, was that one Sangam Lal, who was called the second donee, should make arrangements for the worship and service in a temple, collect the rent of the property and spend it on food, offering and entertainment and in so other way. His representative was to act in a similar manner, such provision seeming to imply a power to appoint a representative if he saw fit, but no one was to have the power to transfer the endowed property Should anybody attempt to transfer the endowed property or to misappropriate the funds, a right was given to the panches and managers of the temple of Banke Bihariji Maharaj to take steps to prevent it. As I under-stand this provision, the latter persons were intended to be a kind of cestui que trust, or guardians of the corpus, who would be sufficiently interested to be recognized by law as persons entitled to interfere in the case of a breach of trust.

(3.) The first donee, the widow, to whom the deceased gave the remaining property, survived him for many years. The second donee, Sangam Lal, for some reason or another, which does not appear on the record of either this suit or of the previous suit to which I am about to refer, never took upon himself the office of manager and it is undisputed that the widow got into possession and retained possession, and if the recitals in the Will, the validity of which is rained in this suit, are to be accepted as true, enjoyed and executed in every way the office of manager or mutwalli in place of Sangam Lal.