MAHARAJ BAHADUR SINGH Vs. PARESH NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants NOs. 1 and 3 against a decree for damage and for an injunction passed by the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh. The facts of the case may be briefly stated thus:--The plaintiff No. 1, Raja Paresh Nath Singh, zemindar of Gaddi Palgunge, is the owner of the Pareshnath hill. On the top of the hill there are certain shrines built by the Sitambari sect of Jains. There is a road which runs up the hill in question for the convenience and use of the pilgrims resorting to the said shrines; and it may be taken that the owner of the hill, the then zemindar of Gaddi Palgunge, dedicated the road for the use of the public It appears that some years ago certain disputes broke out between Raja Paresh Nath Singh and the Sitambari sect of Jains, and these disputes were settled by an ekrarnamah executed between the parties in the year 1872; and the conditions of that ekrarnamah were subsequently reaffirmed in another ekrarnamah in the year 1878. Under these ekramamahs, the Sitambari Jains agreed to pay to the Raja certain shares of charnawas or offerings received at the shrines on the top of the hill, the Raja covenanting not to molest the Sitambaris and the pilgrims resorting to the said shrines, and also covenanting to continue to keep the road up the hill in repair. The road in question, however, was very steep at certain points thereof, the pilgrims being much inconvenienced in consequence, and it would appear that in February 1897 there was something like an informal meeting of a number of pilgrims belonging to the Degambari sect of Jains. They resolved to open a subscription book for the purpose of constructing a flight of steps between the said points on the road for the convenience of the pilgrims resorting to the shrines, they entrusted the supervision of the work to five individuals, Harlal Ji, Raghudas Ji, Hazarimull Ji, Sheo Narain Ajense Matilal Patoji. On the 8 March 1898 a hukumnamah was granted by the Raja to Harlal Ji, one of the five persons we have just mentioned, describing him (Harlal Ji) as the gomastha of the Bispanthi Degambari sect of Jains, authorising him to construct the flight of steps, which had been resolved upon, with this condition, however, that the construction should be made for the convenience of the public, and not for the personal benefit of Harlal Ji, and that the latter should not attempt to create thereby any right in himself in any portion of the hill Pareshnath. By virtue of this hukumnamah, it would seem that Harlal Ji and the other persons mentioned in the resolution of the pilgrims, to which we have already referred, commenced to construct a flight of steps. They did construct a number of steps between certain points on the road in question, but, after they had done so, it is alleged that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 destroyed some of the same. It is in consequence of this destruction by the defendants that the present suit was instituted.

(2.) The suit was instituted by Raja Paresh Nath Singh, the zemindar, Raghu Ji, Chela of Harlal Ji (he having in the meantime died), Hazarimull, Sheo Narain Lal and Matilal Set, the allegation in the plaint being that, under orders of Gopi Babu, manager of defendant No. 1, Maharaj Bahadur, a minor, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 destroyed the flight of steps in question, and thus caused considerable damage. In one portion of the plaint the plaintiffs referred to the hukumnamah of the 8 March 1898, to which reference has already been made, and there Raghu Ji, Hazarimull, Sheo Narain Lai and Matilal, that is to say plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5, are described as the representatives of the Degambari sect of Jains. And it is stated that these persons commenced the work in February 1898 and, after the work was completed to a certain point, the defendants caused the destruction complained of. They asked that a decree for damage to the extent of Rs. 2,500 be awarded to the plaintiffs, and that an injunction be issued upon the defendants restraining them from demolishing the remaining steps, and from offering opposition to the construction of the stairs on the road in question, which had not yet been built.

(3.) We may here mention that, pending the suit, the defendant No. 2 Golab Pande died; and the Court below decreed the suit against the remaining defendants. Hence this appeal, as we have already indicated, by the defendants Nos. 1 and 3.