- (1.) THE Ganga flows along vast sandy tracts which human philanthropy has dotted with elegant ghats. In the city of Kanpur there is a long belt of land on the bank of the Ganges which is compendiously known as the Guptar Ghat. At present it actually consists of four ghats namely Ram Chandra Ghat, Narain Ghat, Akharha Ghat and Brahma Mandal Ghat. To the south of these ghats is situate bungalow No. 160 which is now known as the Police D. I. G. (De puty Inspector General of Police) Bunga low. It appears that in the year 1892 there was no regular ghat by the side of this land and the land was irregular and kachcha. Gradually ghats sprang up. The first in point of time was the Brahma Man dal Ghat which was constructed pacca by the Brahma Mandal about 45 years ago. In or about the year 1930 one Asha Rama built another pacca ghat by the side of Brahma Mandal Ghat which came to be known as Lala Ram Chandra Ghat. Then thereafter Akharha Ghat came into existence and then the defendant Prem Club cons tructed the pacca ghat known as Narain Ghat in the year 1956. The controversy in the suit giving rise to the present appeal was confined to a por tion of the Guptar Ghat known as the Narain Ghat which was originally kachcha but was converted into a pacca ghat by the defendant. The plaintiffs Sidh Nath and Ram Dayal claimed themselves to be Ganga Putras and alleged that they sat on the entire Guptar Ghat on the bank of the river Ganges and exercised Brit Jajmani rights by receiving offerings, charities and alms from their Jajmans, that they had their takhats on the entire Guptar Ghat and that they performed Tarpans, Shradhs, special Ganges .... worship on auspicious occasions such as marriages and Bachhiya Gaudan etc. at the instance of the pil grims. They asserted that their ancestors were in exclusive possession of the Guptar Ghat and exercised Brit Jajmani rights over it and that their rights had been repeatedly recognised by the civil court as well as the executive authorities. Their grievance, however, was that in the year 1953 the respondent, Prem Club obtained a lease of a portion of the Gup tar Ghat now known as Narain Ghat on a nominal lease rent of Rs. 10 per year from the Government and pursuant thereto the respondent had rais ed a wooden and tin partition near their takhats and further threatened to make per manent constructions and hence the neces sity of filing this suit. The reliefs claimed were a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Prem Club, its members etc. from interfering with the plaintiffs' exercise of their Brit Jajmani rights over the entire Guptar Ghat including the disputed Narain Ghat and a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to remove the partition of wood and tin round their takhats.
(2.) THE respondent denied that the plaintiffs or their ancestors were exercis ing Brit Jajmani rights over the entire Guptar Ghat including the Narain Ghat. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs and their ancestors used to sit on Ram Chandra Ghat which formed only a portion of the entire Guptar Ghat and it was on Ram Chandra Ghat alone that they were exer cising Brit Jajmani rights and had their takhats. The exercise of any such rights on the kachcha Narain Ghat was categori cally denied. It was also pleaded that the land in question was acquired by the Government in the yeai 1949 and the U. P. Government granted to the defendant a lease of the Narain Ghat on the 22nd July, 1953 and conse quently whatever rights the plaintiffs had in the said ghat were extinguished. They could, therefore, no more claim any Brit Jajmani rights over the said ghat. The plaintiffs had no right to keep their takhats on the Narain Ghat and receive offerings, charities and alms from the pilgrims. The defendant claimed to be a duly registered society under the Societies Registration Act. The main object of the defendant Club being to encourage and advance the art of swimming, bathing and life saving etc; it claimed to have rendered meritori ous service in this direction on several oc casions and pleaded that if the plaintiffs were allowed to carry on their activities on the pacca Narain Ghat which had been actually built by the defendant, it was bound to obstruct the discharge of public service by the Club. It was further con tended that the plaintiffs' alleged right of Brit Jajmani was akin to begging and hence they could not claim a permanent injunction in respect of the same and the suit was not legally maintainable. The de fendant claimed to have constructed on the basis of the lease in its favour a pacca ghat (Narain Ghat), a temple and other buildings at a cost of Rs. 80,000/- or near about. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had succeed ed in establishing their Brit Jajmani and that the acquisition of the ghat by the Government did not destroy those rights. Hence, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. The lower appellate Court, however, set aside the decree and allowed the respondents' appeal.
(3.) THE main questions which fall for determination in this appeal are:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs have succeed ed in establishing Brit Jajmani rights as stated by them? If it is so established, they would be entitled to restrain the de fendant by means of an injunction as pray ed. In case such right is not established no relief can be granted to them in this regard. 2. Even if such right is found in the plaintiffs' favour, whether it was extinguish ed when the Government acquired the ghat in suit? ;