SAHDEO DAS Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by defendant 1, Sahdeo Das, against a decree of the District Judge of Azamgarh passed under Section 92, Civil P.C. directing the removal of the appellant from the office of manager of a temple at Bahadurpur within a mile of Dohrighat in Azamgarh District. The chief point which has been raised before us in appeal is whether this temple is a public temple or a private temple. In other words, whether it is a trust created for public purposes of a religious nature which would come within the wording of Sec. 92, Civil P.C. and whether the plaintiffs are persons having an interest in the trust. The plaintiffs have shown that they have obtained the permission of the Legal Remembrancer to bring the present suit. The descent of the gurus and chelas of this temple is contained in the following table which is admitted by both parties.

(2.) The history of the building is also common ground. Sheo Ram Das built this Thakurdwara in Bahadurpur and installed the idols of Bam and Janki in it. Hari Das his disciple purchased some property in the name of the deity. The present defendant appellant has succeeded by virtue of his being chela of Mathura Das. We do not agree with the proposition of law laid down by the learned District Judge in the following terms: All Hindu temples are presumed to be open to the public for worship and any one who alleges that a certain temple is private has to prove that fact.

(3.) We consider that a correct statement of the law is contained in , Kelu Achan v. C.S. Siva Rama Pattar, which is that there is no presumption that any particular temple is public or private, and whether it is public or private depends on the facts proved in each case. Now having considered the evidence on both sides we find that there are the following facts proved in the present case.