P.L.BHARGAVA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Sri Jagannathji, installed in a temple situate in Jagannathji ki gali in old Generalganj in the city of Kanpur, and Raghunath Das (the plaintiffs -respondents) against Sri Kishen (the defendant -appellant) to obtain the following reliefs : (1) by enforcement of the right of manage, ment which vesta in Raghunath Das (plaintiff 2), Sri Kishen (defendant) be removed from the management of property specified in the plaint, which has been made 'waqf' of, and Raghunath Das be awarded possession over the said property as its 'mutwalli' and manager; and (2) an order may be made requiring the defendant to render accounts of the income from the 'waqf' property upto the date of possession by Raghunath Das and a decree for the amount already realised, be passed in favour of Raghunath Das as against the defendant.
(2.) THE temple was admittedly constructed by one Brij Lal, whose relationship with the contending parties will appear from the following genealogical table, which is not disputed : Brij Lal (Founder of the waqt) (died :1998 -1899) Lachchmi Narain (elder) Thakur Das (Died : 1901) (Predeceased Brij Lal) | | Narain Das (Died : 1920) ||| | Janaki Das Raghunath Das | | (Seniormost in the | Ramkumar family now)(Plaintiff 2) ||| Kedar Nath (eldest) Mangal Das Ram Kishan (Dead) (Died : 1904) (Next Eldest) | (Died :1945) Sri Kishan (Defendant) Sri Narain Jagdish Narain Having constructed the temple, Brij Lal installed and consecrated therein the idol of Sri Jagannathji. He himself managed the temple and defrayed the expenses in connection with 'bhog' etc. For the worship and services of the deity he had appointed a 'pujari' (priest). On 15 -1 -1879, Brij Lal executed a deed of 'waqf, whereby he dedicated to Sri Jagannathji two houses, situate in mohalla Old Generalganj in tho City of Kanpur, transferring all his rights and interests therein. In the deed he stated that he had been and was defraying necessary expenses in connection with the temple, and with a view to perpetuate his name after his death, he had made the 'waqf'. The first condition mentioned in the deed was that the necessary expenses in connection with the temple shall be defrayed out of the rent realised from the two houses, one of which was let out on an annual rental of Rs. 115 and the other fetched an annual rental of Rs. 110, i. e., in all Rs. 225. The next condition in the deed was that none of the heirs of Brij Lal shall try to appropriate to himself any portion of the said sum of Rs. 225 and the whole amount shall be spent in meeting the expenses connected with the maintenance of the temple, and that the representatives of Brij Lal shall from time to time improve the condition of the 'waqf property so that the funds may never fall short for meeting the necessary expenses. The third condition in the deed is the most important, and its proper interpretation is one of the subject -matters in dispute in this appeal. That condition is to the effect : 'That my sons, Lachhmi Narain and Thakur Das, shall after my death be the managers ('mohtamim') and 'Karkun' of the temple made 'waqf' of and shall act as my representatives like myself ('misl zat khas mere'). As the property has been set apart and made 'wagf' of, I or my heirs have no personal interest left therein. If ever in future any such situation arises as to cause loss to the property aforesaid, my sons, Lachhmi Narain and Thakur Das, shall jointly or severally act as managers ('muntazim -munsarim') and do 'pairvi' before the officer for the time being and at all times; and similarly in future the senior -most members of my family ('aulad -i -akbar) shall be the manager of the 'waqf property, shall supervise the affairs of the temple made 'waqf of, and shall have all the rights mentioned in this document, except the right to misappropriate. My sons, Lachhmi Narain and Thakur Das, or any of my lawful heirs shall never, under any circumstance, have the right to transfer the two houses mentioned above. In case any of my heirs incurs any liability, the property aforesaid, i. e., the two houses and the amount of rent made 'wagf of, shall not be subject to the charge of any amount due from any of my heirs. In case it so happens, the officer for the time being shall protect the property from litigation. After my death, my two sons, aforesaid, shall have the right to, and remain in possession of, all the existing appurtenances to the temple. During my lifetime I myself shall be responsible.'
(3.) THE fourth condition in the deed specifies how the sum of ES. 225, the income from the rental of the two houses, was to be spent. After the details of the expenses, the boundaries of the two houses are given.;