SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 CPC arises out of the judgment and decree dated 22/12/1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge has decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration.
(2.) PLAINTIFFS respondents filed a suit against defendant Radhey Shyam for declaration, possession, injunction and damages for use and occupation, with the averments that plaintiff No. 2 is a temple of Thakurji Shreeji, Anna Poornaji and Mahadeoji, situated at Jaiti-ki-kothi, Chandarwaja, Moti Katla Bazar, Jaipur and there is a land beneath it measuring 5 bighas. One Sadaram Mushraf, Kayastha by caste purchased a well and the said 5 bighas of land, for which a patta was granted by the then erst-while State of Jaipur for the purpose of constructing temple of Mahadeoji and Annapurnaji which was accordingly constructed. Shri Sadaram handed over possession of the aforesaid land and building to Panchan Biradari Kayasthan Mathur Chowkri Ram Chanderji, a committee of Kayasthan constituted by Kayastha inhabitants of Chowkri Ram Chanderji, Jaipur and since then the property remained in continuous possession, charge, control and management of the said Panchan Kayasthan and they also got constructed a temple, building and also managed the agricultural land attached to the temple which formed part of the grant. The said committee used to appoint Pujaries, arrange Bhograj, held functions and made constructions, additions and alterations and installed the diety of Thakurji Shri Anna Poornaji in the said temple. It is further averred that Panchan Kayasthan upto to appoint Pujaries for Sewa Pooja on their passing examination arranged by the Charity Department of erstwhile State of Jaipur. Shri Ghanshyam was first appointed as Pujari of the diety by the Panchan Kayasthan when he was found suitable and approved by the Mauj Mandir. After the death of Ghanshyam, Shri Chotey Lal was appointed as Pujari. After his death, Shri Ram Gopal was appointed as Pujari vide order dated 17. 1. 1935 and he performed Sewa Pooja of plaintiff No. 2 under the direction, control and management of Panchan Kayasthan. After Ram Gopal passed away, Shri Mohan Lal was appointed as Pujari. When Mohan Lal died, his son Radhey Shyam, defendant came to be appointed as Pujari in 1961 by the Panchan Kayasthan. The Panchan Kayasathan vide its letter dated 1. 12. 1964 transferred the management, rights and title of the temple and the properties to the plaintiff No. 1 and since then the temple of Thakurji Shri Anna Puranaji and Shri Mahadeoji is being managed by the plaintiff No. 1 and the rights which vested in Panchan Kayasthan and Sadaram now vest in the plaintiff No. 1. The defendant applied to the Dharmarth Department that the amount of Bhog Rag and for light be paid to him, which was allowed. It has been averred that the defendant started creating complications and failed to perform his duties as Pujari properly and has involved himself in looking after his own business and has also opened a shop. The plaintiff No. 1 asked him to be vigilant in performing his duties, but of no avail. The plaintiff No. 1 vide its letter dated 5. 4. 1975 informed him that he has been removed from the post of Pujari for his mismanagement and misconduct and asked him to hand over charge to the Secretary of the Sabha. However, the defendant refused to hand over the charge and claimed himself to be the owner of the property. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is trying to transfer the property and create new rights in the property, to which he has no legal and valid title. Ultimately, the plaintiff No. 1 vide its resolution dated 4th May, 1974 decide to file the present suit against the defendant and accordingly authorised the President and Secretary to sign the pleadings and to take all necessary steps. It was in these circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the present suit. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. While admitting patta of the land in the name of Sadaram and construction of temple by Sadaram, the defendant has averred that his ancestors had got the temple properly reconstructed. It has also been admitted that works relating to the temple were being carried out in the name of Panchayat Mathur Kayasthan till 1935. It has been averred that at the relevant time, the Government used to sanction grant to the temples and the Pujaries were required to be eligible for Sewa Pooja, irrespective of the fact whether charity is private or public. Ramgopal was the grand father of defendant and government grant was sanctioned in his favour in 1934-35 and he worked under the direction and control of Kayasth Mathurs. While denying other averments of the plaint, the defendant specifically pleaded that at the insistence of some gentle persons of Kayasth community who were also in good relations with Ram Gopal, Ram Gopal moved an application to the Charity Department which was accepted. On acceptance of the said application, the above persons of Kayasth community assured him to hand over the temple and the land to him and also handed over `patta' of the land. In this way, Ram Gopal was appointed Sebait and Pujari of the temple. The defendant further alleged that he is the hereditary Pujari and Sebait of the temple. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and at the conclusion of trial, decreed the plaintiffs' suit, declaring that the temple along with the properties are of the ownership of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiff No. 1 is the Manager Controlling Trustee and Shebait thereof. It was further declared that the defendant is also entitled to remain in possession and continue as Pujari of the temple and is also entitled to his capacity as Pujari to have all the facilities and receive the grant from the Devasthan Vibhag as also from the plaintiffs for Sewapuja and bhograj of the Thakurji. Hence the present appeal by defendant appellant Radhey Shyam, since deceased and represented by his legal heirs.
(3.) IN assailing the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, Mr. N. K. Joshi, appearing for the defendant appellants has vehemently contended that despite finding to the effect that there is no documentary proof as to the handing over possession of the temple and its properties by Sadaramji to Panchan Biradari Kayasthan, the trial Court has fallen into error in holding that the said temple and its properties were given to Panchan Biradari Kayasthan. The said finding, according to Mr. Joshi, being based on surmises and conjectures and contrary to the evidence on record is liable to be reversed. It has been argued that defendant has been in continuous possession of the suit property and he has rebuild, renovated and rejuvenated the entire property. According to him there is ample evidence that defendant was not only the Pujari but also the Shebait of the temple. However, the learned trial Court has erred in ignoring the entire evidence in this respect. The next argument advanced by Mr. Joshi is that the trial Court has failed to consider that at no point of time any appointment of defendant and/or his father or his grand-father was made by the Panchan Biradari Kayasthan and mere recommendatory letters addressed to Devasthan Department do not clothe the Panchan Biradari Kayasthan as Shebaits of the temple. Mr. Joshi further argued that the trial Court has failed to consider that plaintiff society has no authority in law either over the temple or in respect of management and administration of Sewa-pooja of the temple. ;