P.R.SHARMA,J. - (1.) L . This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the dismissal of their suit for a declaration that the properties described in paras 3 and 7 of the plaint belong to the plaintiff No.1, namely the idol of Shri Chaturbhuj; that defendant had no personal right to or interest in the suit property, that the defendant respondent No.1 was a mere purjari of the plaintiff idol and in the capacity of a pujari was bound to work under the control of the plaintiff No.2 Shri Rao Chaturbhuj and the remaining defendants.
(2.) THE defendant No.1 objected inter alia that the suit was unmaintainable on account of non -compliance with the provisions of S.92 of the Code or Civil Procedure. This contention was upheld by the trial Court. It may be mentioned here that the plaintiffs alleged in paragraph 9 of the plaint that the defendant No.1 was asserting his own right to the property described in paras 3 and 7 of the plaint. In para 15 the first two reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs relate only to a declaration of the title of plaintiff No.1 to the property mentioned in Paras 3 and 7 of the plaint, and the fact that the defendant No. 1 had no personal right to or interest in the same. To this extent we are of the opinion that the plaintiffs' suit was not at all governed by the provisions of S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Shri Kalimata Thakurani Vs. Jibandhan Mukerjee, AIR 1962 SC 1329 that in a suit for settlement of a scheme for the management of a temple it is not appropriate for the Court to investigate questions of title to property about which there is a dispute. To a suit in which an idol sues for possession of its property or property which it claims as its own the provisions of S. 92 C.P.C. will have no application (See Kishan Bhagwan Vs. Shri Maroti Sanasthan, AIR 1947 Nag. 233.
(3.) WE are of the opinion that the present suit, in so far as it relates to the claim for a declaration that the properties mentioned in paras 3 and 7 of the plaint belong to the plaintiff No.1, and that defendant No. 1 has no personal right, title or interest therein, is dearly maintainable. We would, therefore, order that the plaintiffs should be all owed to amend their paint so as to confine their suit to the aforesaid reliefs only. They shall delete from the plaint all other matters pertaining to the administration of the trust.;