NARAYAN BHIKAJI KHANOLKAR Vs. VASUDEO VINAYAK PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this second appeal is whether the present suit is barred by the provisions of Section 92, Sub-section (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, that is, whether the suit as framed is within the scope of Section 92. For this purpose it is necessary to refer to the allegations in the plaint briefly and to the prayers. The plaint is rather a long document, but the effect of it is that according to the plaintiffs they and defendants 11 and 12 are really the Hakdars or some of the Hakdars in the income of the temple in question, and that defendants Nos. 1-10 have been managing this wrongfully and appropriating the proceeds of the temple. After referring to their Hak to appropriate the proceeds of the temple, they state the cause of action in this manner in paragraph 8:--

(2.) On behalf of the Dewasthan and for the benefit of the said Institution, the plaintiffs have brought this suit as those persons are entitled to take the income who are empowered to receive the income of the Dewasthan properties and to spend it and devote it towards the proper expenses of the Dewasthan and plaintiffs and defendants 11 and 12 are the managers and trutees of the Dewasthan properties. Therefore, it is not necessary to make the other Hakdars parties to the suit. Yet if the Court thinks that the other Hakdars are necessary parties, then it should be understood that plaintiffs have brought this suit on behalf of such Hakdars and in respect thereof proclamation should be made in accordance with Order I, rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code and plaintiffs allowed to conduct the suit.

(3.) The reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs are these:-- A. It should be decreed that the plaintiffs and defendants 11 and 12 should get from defendants 1-10 or from such of them who will admit that they received the income of Dewasthan properties that the amount of income should be settled by taking account. B. The plaintiffs are out of the Vahivatdars of the property of the Dewasthan Hak of the village of Khanoli. Therefore it should be declared that defendants 1-10, who assert that any one can, without the common consent of all the persons forming the class of Hakdars, do the works in connection with the festivities of the Dewasthan and take the income of properties, are not so entitled and an injunction should be issued against defendants 1-10 or such of them as claim illegally the right to receive the income, that they should not spend and henceforth take the income. C. If there be against the plaintiffs and defendants 11 and 12 any objection to the receiving of the amount of the income received by any of the defendants out of defendants 1-10, they should be directed to keep it credited in the name of the Dewasthan.