J.P. Jain, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFFS have challenged the order of the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh dated 27 -7 -74 passed in civil original suit No. 17 of 1974 whereby he stayed his hands from proceeding with the suit and directed the parties to approach the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan for taking a decision as to whether the temple in question is a public trust or not.?
(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted a suit on 20 -4 -1965 in the court of District Judge, Partabgarh claiming themselves as the founders and the managers (trustees) of the temple known as temple of Bichhavat situate in Chittorgarh against Dwarka Das and two others During the pendency of the suit, Dwarka Das the alleged Pujari of the temple died. Accordingly the suit was amended and in his place his son Jagdeo Das has been impleaded as defendant No. 1. Tae other two defendants Bhagwanji and Sahkari Bhandar. Chittorgarh are proforma defendants and they are said to be the tenants in the temple property. The case of the plaintiff as sat out in the plaint is that toe temple belonged to the community of Chhipas and the idols of Shri Murlidahrji, Shri Hanumanji and Mahadeoji are installed in the temple. There is some immovable property under the temple which has been described in schedule B The list of the movable property has been set out in Schedule A. According to the plaintiffs the plaintiff on behalf of the community of Chhipas are Shebaits and trustees of the temple. They appointed Dwarka Das as Pujari of the temple sometime in Samvat 2003 and he has been taking the offerings received in the temple. But for sometime he has been misconducting his duties as a Pujari and started claiming himself to be the Shebait of the temple Defendant Dwarka Das died on 31 -5 -1966 and after his death his son Jagdeo Das has been in custody of the temple and has been taking rent of the property for his own use. The suit was filed in the representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. It was prayed that the possession of the property described in Schedules A and B be restored to them on behalf of the Chhipa community. The original defendant Dwarka Das had resisted the suit and almost on the same grounds his son Jagdeo Das repudiated the allegations made by the plaintiffs. It was alleged by him that the temple is, really speaking, a Hindu Religious Monastic institution. He denied that the temple was constructed or founded by the Hindu Chhipa community. The management of the institution had always been in the hands of his father as Mahant and after his death he being his disciple became incharge of the institution and the property appurtenant thereto According to him, this institution which was dedicated to the Hindu community at large, the idols were installed is the temple at different times and they are being worshipped formerly by Dwarka Das and now by him. Vaishnavs are directly interested in this institution. He also denied the appointment of Dwarka Das as Pujari by the plaintiff or by the Chhipa community. It was also contended that the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 apply to this institution. The case was transferred for trial to the Civil Judge, Chittorgarh. As many as 9 issues were framed and the evidence was recorded on all the issues. The issues which are relevant for the purpose of this revision application, are as follows: 1. Whether the property in dispute is that of a public trust and whether this trust requires registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act? 2. If so, whether the suit is barred under Sections 29 and 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act?
(3.) THE learned Judge did not give his finding on other issues placing reliance on the decision in Jagannath and Ors. v. Satya Narayan and Ors. . He found that the assets of the alleged ample are of more than Rs. 30,000/ -. The question as to whether the temple is a public trust or not, he left it to be decided by the authorities under the Public Trusts Ace. Accordingly ha stayed his hands from proceeding with the case.;