RAM SEWAK Vs. LAXMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "Code") arising from judgment and decree dated 25.04.1980 passed by Sri Santosh Kumar Misra, District Judge, Jhansi in Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1979 allowing appeal partly after setting aside judgment and decree dated 02.08.1979 passed by Sri R.S. Morya, Munsif, Court No. 4, Jhansi in Original Suit No. 365 of 1972 whereby suit was dismissed. Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as "LAC") has decreed the appeal partly directing defendants to remove from working as Pujari or even as Manager of disputed temple and properties attached with temple. Defendants were also permanently restrained from interfering in plaintiff's management of disputed temple and from interfering in plaintiff's appointment of another Prabandhak of disputed temple and properties attached with it. LAC has further clarified that plaintiff shall have no right to transfer or gift away in any manner disputed temple or properties attached therewith and plaintiff shall be merely a Shebait-cum-Manager thereof. However, plaintiff can let out disputed houses, shops and trees of groves and get usufruct income of properties of temple merely as Shebait, but, would not use as personal money except for the benefit of temple.

(2.) Original Suit No. 365 of 1972 was instituted by Laxmi Narain, plaintiff-respondent (now substituted by legal heirs) in the Court of Munsif, Jhansi vide plaint dated 10.05.197 Suit was instituted for providing statement of accounts as also for grant of mandatory as well as prohibitory injunction. Plaint case set up by plaintiff-respondent is, that Smt. Radha Rani, widow of Ram Dayal resident of Gursarai, as per desire of her deceased husband, adopted Ganeshi Lal, father of plaintiff. Ram Dayal and his wife were religious people and they got constructed a Ram Janki Temple about 80 years back in the garden (Bagicha) of their house at Gursarai. Deity Ram Janki was installed as per religious traditions. Aforesaid temple became famous in the name of "Mousuma Garha". It was a private temple of Ram Dayal. He employed defendant Rajjoo Lal (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) on following conditions :- <IMG border=1 align=center src="http://www.indialawlibrary.com\images\23112018-320.jpg"></CENTER>

(3.) The entire income of garden (Bagicha) used to be spent for maintenance of temple. Later on, three shops and three houses were also made available for meeting expenses of temple. It was clearly instructed that income of those properties would be used for the purpose of temple only. Defendant discharged his duties as Pujari very diligently and honestly. After death of Ram Dayal, defendant continued to discharge his duties as Pujari. Smt. Radha Rani, after death of her husband, allowed defendant to look after personal properties including authorizing him to look after Court cases also. Plaintiff's father Ganeshi Lal died in 1942 and grand-mother i.e. Smt. Radha Rani died in 1948. Ram Dayal normally, resided at Gursarai but since he had his Zamindari in Mauza Chamed, Pargana Konch, therefore, he used to reside at Konch also. Plaintiff's father Ganeshi Lal and Smt. Radha Rani, generally, resided at Konch. After death of Smt. Radha Rani, defendant started committing default in functioning and also misused income of temple and properties for his own benefits on account whereof condition of temple and properties attached thereto got deteriorated. considerably, and houses and shops became in dilapidated conditions. Defendant also stopped observance of regular religious festivals in temple. Deities' statue got damaged, but, defendant did not get it replaced. Well, situated in the garden (Bagicha), also got damaged but not repaired. Plaintiff, after death of his father, time to time reminded and requested defendant to take steps for improvement of temple and its buildings but he only gave assurance and did nothing. Defendant also stopped Sewa Puja of Deity in temple and never gave any accounts in respect of income from temple and attached properties. Plaintiff, therefore, now is not interested to continue defendant as Pujari of temple and want to appoint somebody else. Cause of action arose on 25.04.1972 and 005.1972 when defendant neither provided accounts nor shown any attempt to do Sewa Puja of temple. Plaintiff sought following relief :- <IMG border=1 align=center src="http://www.indialawlibrary.com\images\23112018-321.jpg"></CENTER>