CHHOTEY LAL Vs. SRI THAKUR GOPALJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in the suit out of which the present appeal arises was about the right to the mutwalliship of a temple in the city of Muttra and about the possession of the property appertaining there to and the decision of the dispute depends mainly on the interpretation of a deed of endowment dated 12 January 1888, executed by two brothers named Suraj Mal alias Chhajju Babu and Murli Manohar. There were three plaintiffs in the suit. Plaintiff 1 was Sri Thakur Gopalji Maharaj, an idol installed in the said temple and the remaining two plaintiffs were Kanhaiya Lal and Sohan Devi. The relationship of these two plaintiffs with Suraj Mal and Murli Manohar would appear from the following pedigree: [see next page]

(2.) The original defendants to the suit were Jagan Chaube and one of his sons named Chhote Lal. Jagan Chaube died during the pendency of the suit in the Court below and then his elder son Bidur was substituted as his legal representative. The plaintiff's case was that according to the deed of endowment plaintiffs 2 and 3 were entitled to be the mutwalli and manager of the temple and of the endowed property and that the defendants had no right either to the possession of the temple or of that property. It was admitted in the plaint that the original defendants were managing the temple and the property, but it was alleged that they were misappropriating the profits of the trust property and the offerings made in the temple. The plaintiffs however based their right to the reliefs prayed for by them essentially on the provisions of the deed of endowment. The reliefs prayed for in the suit were: (a) A perpetual injunction may be issued to defendants or the defendant who might allege to be in the charge of sewa and puja restraining the defendants (or him) from performing sewa and puja of Thakur Gopalji aforesaid installed in the temple and from realizing the arrears of rent in respect of the property appertaining to the temple aforesaid and (b) the defendants may be ordered to withdraw their possession from the temple and property appertaining there to bounded as given below and put the plaintiffs in possession thereof or the defendants may be dispossessed therefrom and the plaintiffs may be put in possession thereof.

(3.) Both Bidur and Chhote Lal contested the suit. They pleaded that after the death of Murli Manohar, Suraj Mal, by a deed dated 10 August 1901, in exercise of the powers reserved to him by the deed of endowment,appointed Jagan Chaube manager and mutwalli of the said temple and that Jagan remained manager for about 30 years and then appointed Chhote Lalas manager and mutwalli by a deed dated 9 July 1932. On these allegations it was pleaded that Chhote Lal was the rightful manager and mutwalli and that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not the managers and mutwallis and were not entitled to bring the suit. The allegation about the misappropriation of the income of the trust property and of the offerings was denied and limitation was pleaded in bar of the plaintiff's claim.