MUKUND LAL Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit giving rise to the present appeal was brought by the plaintiffs- respondents, in a representative capacity, on behalf of the Hindu community, under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil P.C. The dispute between the parties centres round a courtyard and a well which are situate to the east of a temple in which the plaintiffs as members of the Hindu community, are entitled to worship, and to the north of the house of defendant-appellant. Both parties claimed exclusive ownership of the sahan and the well in dispute.

(2.) The trial Court held that the sahan and the well are the common properties of the temple, Brij Basi Lal plaintiff, and the defendant-appellant The lower appellate Court has held that the sahan and the well exclusively belong to the temple, and, on that finding, has passed a decree in the plaintiff's favour, ordering the defendants to close a drain made by them, and not to use a latrine which is to the north of the outer gate of the temple, and for the removal of certain constructions made by the defendants over the well. There were other reliefs prayed for by the plaintiffs-respondents, but I am not concerned, in the present appeal, with those reliefs, as the same have not been granted to the plaintiffs by the decree of the lower appellate Court and the plaintiffs have submitted to that decree.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the defendant that the property appertaining to the temple is vested in the idol installed in the temple, and as on the plaintiffs own showing there is a managing committee of the temple, that committee, and that committee alone, has the right to maintain a suit with respect to the property vested in the deity, and that the present suit by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. It is maintained that the only right of the plaintiffs or of the Hindu public is to worship in the temple, and as it was not the plaintiffs case that right had in any way been interfered with, the plaintiffs had no, cause of action to bring the present suit. It is pointed out that if there was a breach of trust committed by the members of the managing committee, who for the time being are the trustees of the temple, the proper remedy of the plaintiffs, or for the matter of that of members of the Hindu community, was to have brought a suit for the removal of those trustees under Section 92 of the Civil P. C., and to have the trust property vested in new trustees appointed by the Court, and that to allow the institution of suits like the present by persons other than the trustees would in effect be to allow persons who have no interest in a particular property to maintain actions concerning the same, which cannot be done. In Support of the argument noticed above reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on the case of Pramatha Nath Mullick V/s. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick .