HANSRAJ LADDASHET Vs. ANANT PADMANABH BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff s suit is barred by the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The plaintiff filed his suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Kumta in the District of Kanara. The suit relates to a public Hindu temple known as the Gopal-krishna temple of Gore. The plaintiff claims to be the representative of the original donor, Damodar Sheth, who purchased certain lands from one Ramkrishnabhatta and endowed the temple therewith, and to be interested in the property dedicated to the temple. He also claims to be a Muktesar appointed by the Temple Committee duly constituted for the Kumta Taluka under the Religious Endowments Act, XX of 1863, read with Bombay Act VII of 18G5. The defendants Nos. 1 to 7 are the representatives of Ramkrishnabhatta, the original owner of the lands, and defendants 8 and 9 are, the representatives of another family, who with the defendants 1 to 7 claimed to be the hereditary Archakas of the temple.

(3.) The plaintiff has set forth briefly the history of the endowment in the plaint and alleged that Ramkrishnabhatta accepted the endowment for the temple as a trustee and undertook to perform the services in the temple as an Archaka, that he was appointed a Muktesar by the Temple Committee, that subsequently defendants Nos. 1, 8 and 9 were appointed Muktesars, that they were ultimately dismissed from their office as Muktesars, and that he himself was appointed a Muktesar in November 1910. He has further alleged in the plaint as follows:- In addition to the lands which have been from times immemorial in the possession of all the defendants as worshippers for purposes of Nandadeep, worship and food offerings, although defendants 1 to 9 are liable to deliver over possession of the Tastik duo to the God, and the possession of the moveable and immoveable properties charitably given by the abovementioned and other persons and although they are liable to make good the loss caused by them to the God and to pay the value of the articles appertaining to the buildings of the God s right and appropriated by them for their own use and to deliver the balance of the principal and interest after deducting from the income of the God the actual expenses incurred together with an account (in, respect of the same) they did not do so although demand for them was made ever since 1910.