RAM PIARI Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Court below as barred by time. The suit arose out of the following facts. The plaintiff is the surviving daughter of one Munshi Shib Dayal. The latter s father or grandfather built a temple in Bareilly town and installed therein an idol. A priest was presumably appointed to preside at the worship in the temple.

(2.) By a deed, dated 27th March 1881, Shib Dayal dedicated to the idol one-half of his landed property to meet the expenses of the temple. In the deed he laid it down that he himself should be the sarbarahkar or manager of the property and that after his death, his heir and representative should succeed him as such. He directed that the sarbarahkar should manage the property and out of the profits thereof should supply funds to the pujari or priest. He further laid it down that the pujari should have no right in the property and that his powers were limited to spending the funds supplied to him in decorating the temple and arranging for the ceremonies therein and that he was liable to dismissal by the sarbarahker. Shib Dayal died leaving a widow Musammat Phula and two daughters, Musammat Sundar (the elder) and the plaintiff Musammat Ram Piari.

(3.) Musammat Phula succeeded him and was in turn succeeded by Musammat Sundar as sarbarahkar. The latter, it is said, delegated her powers as sarbarahkar to one Kuar Sen and also appointed one Nathu Ram as pujari. Shortly before her death Kuar Sen resigned his post.