- (1.) IN this case the six plaintiffs, who described themselves as religious minded men and worshippers of the idol Devi Annapurna Ji installed in the temple in dispute situate on the western side of the tank known as Paniwali Dharamshala in the city of Jhansi, instituted a suit under S.14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the allegations that it was a very ancient temple in which they had made various improvements, that the defendants who claimed to be the Managers of the deity did not care to do Seva Poojah or clean the space in front of the temple, that it was a public temple and the plaintiffs had got it constructed anew, that they had spent money on Utsavas, Bhog Parshad and other matters connected with the temple in suit, that the plaintiffs requested the defendants to enter all the offerings in the account books and spend the same on matters connected with Seva Poojah of the temple in question but they misappropriated the offerings and they also put obstacles to the worship of the deity by the public and performance of Utsavas. Hence, they were alleged to be guilty of misfeasance, breach of trust and negligence in the performance of their duties. In the circumstances an application under S.18 of the Act was moved by the plaintiffs before the District Judge and it was allowed by him. On these allegations the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs were (a) that the defendants be ordered to do proper Seva Poojah of the temple and also arrange for Utsavas as and when they fell due, (b) that the defendants be ordered to keep proper accounts of offering or other income and to spend out of it on matters of Bhog Byari, Utsavas and other matters connected with the temple, (c) that the defendants be ordered to render accounts and in default (d) the defendants be removed from the management.
(2.) THE defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 contested the suit on a number of grounds, alleging that the temple was not a public one and as such the plaintiffs were not entitled to file the suit, that they had nothing to do with the management or Seva Poojah of the deity, that the temple was constructed by the Pandas who were the ancestors of the defendants 350 years ago, who had regularly managed the temple and thereafter the defendants who were their descendants had been properly managing it and doing Seva Poojah and management of the temple, and that it was a private temple and Pacca constructions had been made by the defendants therein with the help of the offerings. The trial court came to the conclusion that it was a public temple, that the suit was maintainable as the provisions of the Act were applicable to the facts of the case, that the defendants were mismanaging the affairs of the temple and were guilty of breach of trust and negligence of duty. The suit was accordingly decreed and the defendants were ordered to do the proper Seva Poojah of the temple, to arrange and celebrate Utsava as and when they fell due every year and to keep proper accounts of the income and to spend at least 75 per cent of the income on Bhog Byari, Utsavas and other matters connected with the temple. It was also held that if they did not comply with any of the above directions they would be liable to be removed from the management of the temple in suit.
(3.) THE appellants have challenged the decree in this appeal and three contentions were raised before me on their (behalf). Firstly, it was argued that the temple in dispute was a private temple. Secondly, it was submitted that its affairs were not being mismanaged by the defendants. Thirdly, it was contended that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the case and consequently the suit was not maintainable.;