Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff's whose suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs was that Bhagwandas and Madan Gopal, who were the ancestors of the parties, jointly purchased some land and constructed temples of Pitreshwerji and Hanumanji and such land and a well, a tank and a 'Bagichi' were also made. According to the plaintiffs, the descendents of both Bhagwandas and Madangopal jointly defrayed the expenses incurred in the maintenance of the aforesaid temples and other structures constructed over the land upto Samvat 2000. Thereafter the plaintiffs suggested that the parties may manage the aforesaid properties by turns, but the defendants postponed a decision in the matter and did not pay any attention to the suggestion made by the plaintiffs but continued to manage the temples and other properties unilaterally in their own manner, which resulted in mis -management of the properties. According to the plaintiffs, they were thus deprived of their right of management and supervision of the religious endowment. According to the plaintiffs, ultimately on December, 21, 1961 the defendants refused to allow the plaintiffs to take .part in the management and supervision of the joint properties of the temples of Pitreshwarji and Hunmanji etc A suit was filed on January 12, 1962 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Churu in which the plaintiffs prayed that it may be declared that the plaintiffs and the defendants were the joint owners in equal shares of the aforesaid religious and charitable properties and both of them were also entitled to have equal share in the management of the said joint properties. The plaintiffs also offered to make payment of the half share of the expenditure incurred by the defendants in the management of the disputed properties since Samvat 2000 & proposed that the parties may be allowed to manage the religious & charitable properties by turns. The defendants in their written -statement admitted that Bhagwan Das and Madangopal were the ancestors of the parties and they also admitted that the land in dispute was jointly purchased by Bhagwandas and Madan Gopal, ancestors of the parties and the 'Bagichi' and temples were jointly constructed by them, in which both the parties incurred expenses. The defendants also admitted that in the 'pattas' of the land in dispute, the names of Bhagwandas and Madangopal were mentioned as they were the senior -most members of the joint Hindu families of the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively. But according to the defendants, thereafter the plaintiff's ancestors refused to make payment of their share of expenses and they relinquished their rights in the disputed properties and told Bhagwandas that he may alone enjoy the properties and may make further constructions in the disputed land at his sweet will. The defendant's case further is that though the defendants have spent Rs. 20.000/ - in the constructions and on managements of the properties in dispute, yet the plaintiffs ancestors spent only Rs. 8,800/ -. The defendants asserted that from the very beginning the management of the properties was in the hands of their ancestors and the defendants were managing the properties in dispute in a proper manner The defendants further stated that although the plaintiffs have a right of going to the temples for worshipping the deities and the defendants never caused any obstruction, yet the right of management vested exclusively in the defendants, since the time of their ancestors and the plaintiffs do not have a right to demand any share in the management of the properties in dispute. The defendants pleaded, in the alternative, that the plaintiffs should be directed to make payment of one half of the amount spent by them and their ancestors on the disputed properties in case it is held that the parties are jointly owned and the plaintiffs were also entitled to manage the properties in dispute. The defendants took the plea that the cause of action for filing the suit arose to the plaintiffs in Samvat 2000 and as such the suit was barred by limitation.
(3.) THE trial court by its judgment dated September 30, 1970 held that the land in dispute on which the temples of Pitreshwarji & Hanumanji were constructed were jointly purchased by the ancestors of the parties & the ancestors of the parties jointly made constructions of the two temples & the other structures over the said land. The trial Court also held that the defendants failed to prove that the ancestors of the plaintiffs relinquished their rights, either in the Bagichi, the temples and other immovable properties or the right of management thereof. It was further held the defendants were not entitled to reimbursement of the amount spent by them over and above their shares of expenses, because they failed to pay court fees in respect of such relief. Thus, on almost all issues of fact, the trial court recorded findings in favour of the plaintiffs. It may be observed that broadly speaking there is not much dispute between the parties on the question that the land in question was jointly acquired by the ancestors of the parties, and the temples & structures were also jointly constructed over such land by the ancestors of the parties. However, in respect of issue No. 5, relating to limitation, the trial court held that Section 10 of the Limitation Act bad no application and as she defendants had claimed adverse possession, the suit was barred by limitation.;