- (1.) The plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') are Hindus and they applied to the Advocate General, Uttar Pradesh, for permission to institute a suit under Section 92, C.P.C., against the defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant'). The Advocate General by his order dated February 25, 1971, granted the permission. The Advocate General in his order observed as follows:- "This is an application for permission to file a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. It appears that a Hindu temple was constructed about a hundred years back on nazul land and, thereafter, from time to time, several members of the public have donated properties for this temple and other buildings, like Dharamshala etc. have also been constructed with such donations which are, at present, appurtenant to the temple. All these properties are being managed by the proposed defendants." Thereafter the Advocate General referred to the presumption in regard to Hindu temples and held that the presumption is that they are public temples unless the contrary is shown. The Advocate General noticed that the Collector's report was also to the effect that there was a public temple and the properties, were donated by the public for religious purposes. In the operative order the Advocate General observed:- "I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out and I accordingly grant permission, under Section 92, C.P.C. for the filing of a suit by the applicant for the reliefs mentioned in the draft plaint." In the draft plaint the reliefs sought were:- (a) An injunction should be issued restraining the defendant from realising any income from the property in suit and further restraining the defendant from acting as Pujari in the temple. (b) The defendant be directed to account for moneys received by 1967-68 and 1969. (c) Any other relief that the court found that the plaintiffs were entitled.
(2.) The allegations in the plaint were that the plaintiffs were Hindus and were interested in public temples and the properties attached thereto and were filing the suit for themselves and as also representatives of the entire Hindu community at Haldwani. It was stated that there was a famous temple popularly known as 'Mandir Ram Chander', which has existed from times immemorial and the Hindu public of Haldwani and other places had been regularly going there to worship and offer prayers every day and particularly on festivals. The plaint went on to add that immoveable properties belong to the temple, which had been donated and constructed by the Hindu devotees from time to time. There followed the description of the properties. The plaint case was that the father and grandfather of the defendant had remained as Pujaris of the temple for puja, Bhog and Arti and added that the defendant was working as pujari on behalf of the Hindu public. It was asserted that for the last four or five years the defendant had been causing loss to the properties attached to the temple and had been appropriating the income and had started claiming the properties as his own. It was asserted that the defendant had neglected the work connected with Puja, Bhog and Arti in the temple. The instances of the alleged misconduct on the part of the Pujari were given. It was asserted that the defendant being only the Pujari of the temple, he could exercise no rights of management in respect of the properties belonging to the temple and his conduct disentitled him from continuing as pujari. The plaintiffs sought the following reliefs in the plaint:- "(a) That by removing the defendant from the management of the temple and its properties as detailed below the defendant be restrained from managing the immovable properties of the temple described and detailed in the schedule annexed hereto by realising or appropriating the income therefrom or from acting as Poojari or in any other manner whatsoever. (b) That a Scheme of Management for managing the temple and its properties detailed below be ordered to be framed providing inter alia the appointment of Committee of Management. (c) That the defendant be directed to render a true and faithful account in respect of the income realised by him from the immovable properties belonging to the temple and a decree for such amount as may on accounting be found to be due against the defendant be passed against him. (d) That the costs of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs. (e) That such other relief to which the plaintiffs be found entitled be awarded to the plaintiffs."
(3.) In the written statement filed by the defendant the existence of the temple known as 'Mandir Sri Ram Chandra Ji' situate at Haldwani, district Nainital, was admitted. It was asserted that it had been founded by defendant's great grandfather, Pt. Gopalji Pujari, in the year 1832 as a private temple meant for his own use and that of the members of his family. It was, however, not admitted that the Hindu public of Haldwam and other places regularly went to the temple for worship and offer prayers every day and particularly on festivals. It was asserted that since the time of his great grandfather the members of the family were looking after the temple and the idols were installed by his great grandfather. It was claimed that the defendant and his ancestors were Shebait and Pujari of the temple and it was further asserted that they did not own their appointment to any one. It was asserted that since the temple was a private temple, the defendant or his ancestors were not required to keep any account or to give account to any one else of the income and expenditure of the temple. It was asserted that as the defendant was both Shebait and Pujari, the defendant had every right of management. It was then asserted that the suit under Section 92, C.P.C. was not maintainable. In this connection it was pointed out:- (a) That the plaint contained no allegation that there is any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of charitable and religious nature. (b) That it was not alleged in the plaint that any trustee has committed any breach of trust or that the directions of the court were necessary for the administration of the trust, (c) that it was not alleged that the plaintiffs were in any way interested in the temple's properties, and (d) that all the reliefs claimed in the plaint except relief (b) could not be claimed in a suit under Section 92, C.P.C. It was then asserted that according to the plaintiffs, the defendant was a Pujari only and Section 92, C.P.C. did not contemplate a suit against a mere pujari. The Advocate General's permission was said to be illegal, null and void.;