J.S. Trivedi, J. - (1.) Plaintiff -Appellants Sri Radha Kishun Ji Maharaj through Sri Ram Govind and Sri Ram Govind filed regular suit No. 509 of 1961 out of which this appeal arises for possession of the Mandir premises and for a declaration that Sri Radha Kishun was the Bhumidhar of the cultivatory plots detailed in the plaint. The Plaintiff's case was that the temple of Sri Radha Kishun Ji has been in existence since long and on 20th December, 1945 one Bhagirath gifted his Zamindari property to Sri Radha Kishun Ji appointing the Plaintiffs along with the Defendant -Respondents 1 to 3 as Mohatimims of the property. Defendant No. 4 Ambha Lal was said to have been appointed the Pujari of the temple. The allegation of the Plaintiff is that the said pujari has wrongfully occupied the building and is laying claim to it, hence the suit.
(2.) Defendants 4 to 6 who are Pujari and his sons contested the suit and denied Plaintiff's right or title in the suit properties. They claimed to have become Sirdars of the tenancy land and they also claimed that the house occupied by them was not part of the temple premises and belonged to them exclusively. The trial Court held that the temple and the premises occupied by the Defendant -Respondents 4 to 6 i.e. Pujari and his sons were part of temple premises belonging to Sri Ram Radha Kishun Ji Maharaj. The trial Court further held that the aforesaid Defendants had no title to the temple premises which included the alleged house. It was also held by the trial court that Defendants 5 and 6 i.e. sons of Pujari being recorded in 1356 F. acquired sirdari rights in the tenancy land and the Plaintiff Radha Kishun Ji was not the Bhumidhar of the agricultural land. The trial Court, therefore, dismissed the suit for possession over agricultural plots. The Plaintiff's suit for possession over the temple premises was, however, decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court Defendants 4 to 6 filed an appeal. A cross objection was filed by the Plaintiff -Appellants. The lower appellate Court dismissed the cross objection. With respect to the temple premises the lower appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court holding that the so -called house was part of the temple premises. The lower appellate Court, however, found that the Defendants 4 to 6 were not guilty of conversion of temple property. According to it the increase of Amba Lal, Defendant 4's family necessitated new constructions and as mismanagement was not proved, the suit of the Plaintiff for possession of the temple premises was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, hence this Second Civil Appeal by the Plaintiff Sri Radha Kishun Ji through Ram Govind and by Ram Govind himself.
(3.) The main point agitated in this appeal is that the Plaintiff Ram Govind was not competent to file the suit. According to the Respondents, Sri Ram Govind or his family members were not the founders of Radha Kishun Ji. They had only dedicated some property to Sri Radha Kishun Ji and by the subsequent dedication of property they could not acquire the status of the Shebaits of the original endowment i.e. Sri Radha Kishun Ji and could not become the founders of Sri Radha Kishun Ji. It is further contended that the suit being in the nature of the framing of a scheme suit was barred by Sec. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;