- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Shri Geeta Mandir Trust, Kamla Colony, Bikaner and two of the trustees Har Bhagwan S/O Botha Ram and Anil Kumar S/O Ram Chandra against LRs. of late Sh. Dwarda Das, the pujari of the temple, who died on 20.9.2012 being aggrieved by the order dtd.12.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.418/2009 ­ Dwarka Das V/s Shri Geeta Mandir Trust and ors. whereby the learned trial Court in the suit for injunction filed by the respondent Dwarka Das, Pujari of temple trust known as Shri Geeta Mandir Trust at Bikaner, held that right to sue survives in the two sons of deceased Dwarka Das, namely, Rajendra Kumar and Basant Kumar and therefore, they deserve to be brought on record upon death of Pujari Dwarka Das on 20.9.2012.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners ­ Temple Trust, Mr. Abhinav Jain relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shri Pratapmaj Dharewa Dadabari Trust and Ganpat Das and ors. - SBCWP No.1404/2012 decided on 4.4.2013 submitted that the Pujari of the temple has no inheritable right and therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the right to sue survives in the sons of the deceased Pujari Dwarka Das and consequently, instead of dismissing the suit itself having abated, the learned trial Court has erred in holding that the sons of the deceased Dwarka Das had right to continue the suit in question, which was filed for injunction against the temple trust. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Vinit Sanadhya initially prayed for some time. However, on the request of adjournment turned down, he submitted that under the agreement Ex.2 and Annex.3, the trustees had conferred inheritable rights upon the father of the present respondents deceased Dwarka Prasad and therefore, they (sons) had a right to continue the suit for injunction filed by Dwarka Prasad and consequently, the impugned order of the learned trial Court does not require any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THIS Court in the case of Shri Pratapmal Dharewa Dhadabari Trust (supra) by a detailed discussion of legal position including previous decision in the case of Ram Gopal and ors. V/s Idol of Shri Radha Krishna Mandir reported in AIR 2007 (NOC) 900 (Raj.) has held that Pujari has no inheritable right of worship and therefore, in the absence of any inheritable right, right to sue cannot devolve upon the with legal heirs of deceased Dwarka Prasad. It would be relevant to reproduce para 14 to 16 of the said judgment for ready reference : "14. This Court is also constrained to note that the present suit is being contested by the legal representatives of deceased Poojari Kalu Das. The Poojari of the temple has admittedly no inheritable right of worship and his appointment as Poojari and duties to perform 'seva pooja' is governed by the terms of his appointment by the Trust or the Trustees managing the affairs of the deity. The Poojari cannot claim any independent right over the property of the Deity in any case. They are neither the owners nor the managers of the property of the Deity, therefore, right to sue cannot be said to have devolved to their legal representatives of deceased Poojari with the death of Poojari appointed by the Trust. Assuming that his appointment continued through his life time, but with his death the same comes to an end and his legal representatives cannot claim any inheritable right even of 'seva puja', much less any right in the property of the Deity, which is managed by the registered Public Trust or the Trustees managing the affairs of the said temple and they are duly registered with the Devasthan Department. Therefore, this aspect of the matter that the respondent-defendants being legal representatives of the deceased Poojari Kalu Das were not even entitled to contest the suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be taken note of by the learned trial court. They were simply unauthorized occupants of the property of the Deity or even a portion thereof. 15. This Court in Ram Gopal and Ors. vs. Idol of Shri Radha Krishna Mandir and Anr. - (SB Civil First Appeal No. 46/1988) decided on 10/1/2007 [AIR 2007 (NOC) 900 (Raj.)] held that the Poojari of a temple has no right to live in the property belonging to the temple and the licence or the permission of the Trust of the temple exists only so long as he continues to discharge his duties as Poojari and once his services as Poojari is dispensed with, no further right remains with the Poojari and he has to vacate the property of the temple with out any demur or objection. Para 13 of the said judgment is quoted below for ready reference:- "Though learned counsel for the appellants rightly submitted that plea of adverse possession can be raised even against the property belonging to idol, relying on AIR 1926 Allahabad 392, AIR 1929 Allahabad 315 and AIR 1935 Madras, 483, but in the opinion of this Court, the defendants have not only pleaded specifically and clearly about their possession becoming adverse to the owner of the property and as to on which date it so happened and thereafter it happened to be continuous and peaceful possession thereby giving them right to remain in possession on account of plea of adverse possession, but he has also failed to prove any such thing before the learned trial court. As against this, the case of the plaintiffs in plaint as well as evidence is clear that the father of the defendants Bhanwar Lal and thereafter one of the defendants Mishri Lal were acting as Poojaries in the said temple and were therefore, given permission to live in the disputed suit property, but with the removal of those persons from the said position of Poojaries, their license or permission to live in the said property automatically stood terminated and it is well settled that the permission under a leave and license by the owner of the property can be revoked at any time. The Poojari of a temple does not have any right to live in the property belonging to the temple and he can use the property only under the permission from the management of the temple only so long as he continues to discharge his duty as Poojari and once his services as poojari are dispensed with, no further right remains with poojari and he has to vacate the property of the temple without any demur or objection. In the present case though the burden of this issue No.7 was on the defendants, the defendants have not pleaded anything much less established as to how they continued to have peaceful and undisturbed possession of the said suit property in the form of a hostile possession or adverse possession. In the absence of any such pleadings or proof, the learned trial court, in the opinion of this Court, rightly held that the defendants were not entitled to any relief on this ground." 16. Thus, in the present case, not only the respondent- defendants have no right to contest the suit against the plaintiff-Public Trust but at the same time, the learned trial court has grossly erred in not allowing the plaintiff Trust to establish its title with a 100 years old Patta, when the original of the same was misplaced or lost by the advocate concerned, who represented them in trial, but unfortunately died during the pendency of the trial in the year 2008 and, therefore, the secondary evidence in the form of photocopy of the said Patta, which was already on the record of the trial court deserves to be allowed and since not allowing the same to be accepted as secondary evidence would amount to miscarriage of justice, this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution considers it appropriate and in the interest of justice to allow the said secondary evidence to be led by the petitioner in view of the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of M.Chandra vs. M.Thangmuthu and anr (supra) and Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D) and ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners." ;