MUSTAJAB KHAN Vs. THAKUR SRI LAKSHMI NARAIN ALIDAS BADRI NARAIN MAHARAJ BIRAJMAN, THROUGH MUSAMMAT KUNJI KOER,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fasts are as follows:---A certain lady dedicated a share in a village to the god described as Sri Thakur Lachmi Narain whose temple was in the village, and by the deed of dedication appointed certain managers of the temple. THEse managers, suing in the name of the god, applied for partition in the Revenue Court under Section 107 of the Land Revenue Act. THE god is a recorded co-sharer. Other co-sharers took the objection that the managers in question were not authorised under the deed of endowment to apply for partition. THEy did not contest the fait that the god was a recorded of sharer, nor did they contest the fast that the plaintiffs were the managers of the temple. THE Assistant Collector allowed this objection and dismissed the application. An appeal was taken to the District Judge on the ground that the question was one of proprietary title. He decided that the question was one of proprietary title, and farther decided that as the god was a regarded so-sharer, the managers of the temple had an inherent right to pat the law in motion on behalf of the recorded co-sharer whom they represented, apart from any recital in the deed of trust. He accordingly allowed the appeal. In second appeal it is contended that no appeal lay to the District Judge and that his order cannot be supported on the merits. It is true that in this casa the objectors did not assert that the god had no right to apply for a partition. THEy asserted only that his managers could not represent him in the matter. It was decided in the case of Abu Muhammad Khan V/s. Kante Fizza 28 A 185 : 2 A. L. J. 652; A. W. N. (1905) 240., that where the objectors admit the proprietary title of the applicant but deny the right to demand a partition, a question of proprietary title was raised. I do not consider that it is straining the meaning of the words to hold that the objectors here raised a question of proprietary right. An appeal, therefore, lay to the District Judge. On the merits, his view was clearly correct. THE managers of the temple having to manage the landed property in the interests of the temple, have an inherent right to claim a partition under the law, being the managers of the recorded co-sharer. I dismiss this appeal with costs.