B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS is Defendant 's second appeal in a suit filed by the Plaintiff -Respondents for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant -Appellant from interfering with the Plaintiffs ' management of the temple and its property.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Plaintiff -Respondents filed a suit with the allegations that one Mahangu Chaubey has agricultural plots and non -agricultural property in village Mohammadpur Dhonghadin Mutalika Rajapur, Pargana and Tehsil Mohammadabad, district Ghazipur. He died leaving his widow Smt. Parkali Kunwar. After his death his widow installed a temple of Sri Shiv Ji and Sri Mahadeo Ji. In order to perpetuate the memory of her deceased husband and for maintaining Ram Bhog etc. in the temple, she executed a registered deed of endowment dated 24th January 1921 dedicating a part of the property. She appointed herself as a Sarvarahkar of the temple and it was further provided that after her death the matter of Sarvarahkar ship shall be decided by the Court. Hanuman Chaubey, the Plaintiffs ' father and Shankh -dhar Chaubey, the father of the Defendant No. 2 in the present suit, had instituted a suit No. 50 of 1921 for cancellation of the deed of endownment. Another suit no 78 of 1921 was filed by Ram Swaroop Chaubey for cancellation of the aforesaid deed of endownment on the basis that he was the reversioner of Mahangu Chaubey husband of Smt. Prakali Kunwar. A compromise was arrived at on 25th May, 1921 in both the suits and it was agreed by the parties that Smt. Parkali Kunwar would continue as Sarvarahkar of the temple till her life time as limited owner and thereafter Hanuman -Chaubey and Shankhdhar Chaubey will be entitled to act as Sarvarahkars. It was also provided that it shall be open to the court to appoint proper person as Sarvarahkar in case there was some mismanagement. In pursuance of this compromise suit No. 50 of 1921 was decreed and suit No. 73 of 1921 was dismissed. It was further alleged that till her death on 29th September, 1970 A.D. Smt. Parkali Kunwar remained Sarvarhkar and meanwhile Hanuman Chaubey and Shankhdhar Chaubey also died. The Plaintiffs were the sons of Hanuman Chaubey, so they were entitled to succeed as Sarvarahkars. They applied for mutation but the same was opposed by the Defendant, who got his name entered in the khatauni and also in other documents as Saravarahkar. Before her death Smt. Parkali Kunwar adopted the Defendant Sadanand Chaubey on 9 -3 -1962 and the adoption deed was registered on 12 -3 -1962 and she also executed a will dated 15 -12 -1966, in favour of the Defendant and also appointed him as Sarvarahkar. A Gift deed dated 24 -11 -69 was also executed in favour of the Defendant. It was further alleged that the adoption, Will deed and Gift deed were illegal and the Defendant has no right hence the suit was filed for injunction. The suit was contested by the Defendant -Appellant who denied the plaint allegations and averred that after the enforcement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the UP ZA & LR Act, 1950 (for short the Act) prior to the death of Smt. Parkali Kunwar on 29 -9 -1970, her interest, even as limited owner, was enlarged as full fledged owner and fresh rights were accorded by Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and by Section 18 of the Act, hence the earlier compromise dated 25 -5 -1921 would not be binding nor shall operate as an estoppel or resjudicata, as there can be no estoppel against the Statute. It was further alleged that the deed of adoption, Will -deed and Gift -deed etc. executed by Smt. Parkali Kunwar were legal, and the Plaintiffs have no right nor they are entitled as Sarvarahkars and the Plaintiffs ' suit was also barred by time and was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE learned Munsif Mohammadabad, Ghazipur vide his judgment dated 28th November, 1977 dismissed the Plaintiffs ' suit. The Plaintiff -Respondents preferred an appeal, before the lower appellate Court, and the same was allowed by the judgment and decree dated 8th December, 1980. The present second appeal has been filed by the Defendant -Appellant and the relief sought is that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court may be set aside and that of the trial court restored -;