HEMRAJ SHRIRIPALI PRASAD Vs. RAVI PRAKASH PUJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall also govern disposal of Second Appeal No. 509 of 1981 (Ravi Prakash and Ors. v. Hemraj and Ors.), which has been filed by the respondents and involves common questions of facts and law.

(2.) THIS appeal, filed under Section 100, Civil Procedure Code is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23-3-1981 passed by II Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 13-A/8. 0 arising out of judgment and decree dated 27-1-1970 passed by II Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 10-A/64. Second Appeal No. 509 of 1981 arises out of judgment and decree dated 23-3-1981 passed by the same learned lower appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 12-A/80 arising out of judgment and decree passed by the same trial Court in Civil Suit No. 2-A/65.

(3.) THE dispute between the parties is about the legal status and character of Somnath Temple, Ram-Janki Temple and Radha-Krishna Temple situated at village Lakhana, Tahsil and District Raipur. The appellants in this appeal wanted declaration, that Somnath Temple is also a public trust within the meaning of M. P. Public Trusts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In Second Appeal No. 509 of 1981, the appellants defend the verdict of the Courts below that Ram-Janki Temple and Radha-Krishna Temple are public trusts. The respondents are contending that all the three temples are their private temples and, therefore, not liable to be declared public trust under the Act. The facts, which are by now clear, are that the deity in Somnath Temple, the Lord Shiva, is an ancient one and it is the respondents' claim that it has been installed by their ancestors. About a hundred years back, the temple was constructed by one Padum Banjara, Subsequently, Jankidas and Gaibinath also constructed the two other temples in 1920 and 1922. The land on which these temples have been constructed belonged to the Malguzari of the respondents' great grand-father. Appellants Hemraj and others applied to the Registrar of Public Trusts, Raipur under Section 26 of the Act, for removal of Badrinath. an ancestor of respondent Ravindra Prakash. The said application was decided by the Registrar on 11-8-1959 holding that since the temple was not registered as a public trust, the application under Section 26 of the Act was not maintainable. Thereafter, an application under Section 5 of the Act was filed which was decided by the Registrar vide his order dated 25-8-1964 (Ex. ' P-21 in S. A. No. 509 of 1981 ). The Registrar, by his order held that Somnath Temple was a private trust and not public trust and, therefore, could not be registered as such. He, however, held that Ram-Janki Temple and Radha-Krishna Temple were public trusts and were therefore declared as such. Being aggrieved by* this order, the appellants filed their Civil Suit No. 10-A/64 seeking a declaration that even Somnath Temple was a public trust and was liable to be declared as such. Original respondents Bulakilal Pujari and Rameshwardas filed their Civil Suit No. 2-A/65 challenging the order of the Registrar relaning to Ram-Janki Temple and Radha-Krishna Temple and sought a declaration that these temples were also their private trusts and, therefore, were wrongly declared as public trust. The learned trial Judge, however, upheld the appellants' contention and decreed that even Somnath Temple was a public trust The learned Trial Judge agreed with the Registrar and held that Ram-Janki Temple and Radha Krishna Temple were public trusts and were rightly declared as such. On these findings, the suit filed by the appellants was decreed, whereas, the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed by the trial Court.