SOBHAGMAL JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 14. 01. 1974 of the Additional District Judge, Udaipur affirming the judgment and decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated September 22, 1969 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for possession.
(2.) THE case relates to a Dewra of Bheruji and the property attached to it situated in Moti Chohta, Udaipur. THE plaintiffs' case, in brief, was that the suit property was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs. It was given to Pyaraji Kandera for the purposes of sewa puja. After the death of Pyaraji the defendants, who are sons of Pyaraji, neglected to do sewa-puja and are denying even the title of the plaintiffs. THE plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for the declaration that the Dewra and the attached i. e. Overi, Parikrama, Padsal and the shop was owned by the plaintiffs. It was also prayed that the defendants may be removed from the suit premises and the plaintiffs be put in possession of the same. THE suit was contested by the defendants. THEy denied the ownership of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that they were in possession of the property since the time of their ancesters and that they had become owners of the same. The Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, by his judgment dated the 22. 09. 1969 decred the plaintiff's suit holding that the plaintiffs were the owners of the Dewra and were entitled to supervise the management of the temple. It was further held that Pyaraji, father of the defendants, was appointed as pujari by the plaintiffs for the purpose of doing sewa puja. The property attached to the temple was given to the defendants by the plaintiffs for the purpose of residence on account of the fact that they were to perform sewa puja of the temple. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit for the reason that the defendants had denied the title of the plaintiffs. On appeal, the Additional District Judge, Udaipur, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the finding of the trial court was correct that the Dewra was owned, by the Dhabaion community and that the defendants' father was allowed to use the property as he was doing sewa puja. The learned Additional District Judge also held that the defendants had committed a misconduct by denying the title of the plaintiffs, and therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to get back the possession of the suit property from the defendants. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed the present second appeal. The question, whether the suit property belongs to the plaintiffs, is a question of fact. Both the courts have come to a concurrent finding that the suit property was owned by the plaintiffs. Pyaraji, father of the defendants was put in possession of the property for the purpose of doing sewa puja in the Dewra. I do not find any infirmity in the findings arrived at by the learned courts below. The finding is based on appreciation of evidence led by the parties. There is admission of Pyaraji himself, made in his statement in khalsa proceedings, wherein he categorically stated that the suit property belonged to Dhabaion community and that he was in possession of the same on behalf of the said community. The defendants or their witnesses have nowhere stated in their statements that the temple was owned by them. On the contrary there is positive evidence led by the plaintiff that the temple belongs to them. The Additional District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendants committed mis-conduct by denying the title of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to get back the possession of the property from the defendants. The result is, there is no merit in the second appeal and the same is Loorder as to costs. .;