VINEET KOTHARI, J. - (1.) SINCE this present second appeal is pending for admission for last 15 years, unfortunately, therefore, it was ordered to be listed for final disposal at the admission stage by this Court on 8/9/2008. On account of death of sole respondent-defendant Prem Dass on 8/8/2007, an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Rule 9 namely I.A. No. 12115/08 was filed by the appellant, which was allowed by this Court on 17/9/2008 and amended cause title was taken on record as it was stated in the application that earlier also an application under Order 22 Rule 4 was filed for taking Legal representatives of deceased respondent Prem Das on record on 5/11/2007 within 90 days of the death and copy of the same was given to counsel Mr.Suresh Shrimali but on account of bonafide typing error as the appeal number in that application was mentioned as 153/93 instead of 150/93, the said application could not be dealt with and disposed of earlier. Be that as it may, the aforesaid corrected application was allowed by this Court. However, Mr.Suresh Shrimali pleaded no instructions on behalf of respondents-legal representatives, therefore, since Mr.Hanuman Dass son of late Prem Dass, who appeared in the case on behalf of respondents-defendants, all L.Rs of Late Prem Dass, and stated that he is working as Junior Accountant with Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation and represents all the legal representatives of late Prem Dass, he was heard in the matter.
(2.) MR . L.R. Mehta assisted by Mr.R.K.Purohit and Mr.Ramit Mehta submitted that though the courts below decided all issues in favour of plaintiff-appellant Shri Parshvanath Jain Temple, Guron-ka-Talab, Jodhpur, which was represented through manager and patron Shri Ugam Raj Mehta, Shri Balwant Raj Bhansali and Shri Sukhpal Chand, yet issue No. 4 as to whether plaintiff being not registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act could maintain the suit or not was decided in favour of defendant and, therefore, the eviction decree was not granted by the learned trial court. While the trial court in its judgment dated 31/3/1990 held that defendant-Prem Dass had ceased to be 'Pujari' of the said temple w.e.f. 19/2/1982 and the suit premises namely a 'kotadi' and verandah was given to him for living there so long as he worked as 'Pujari' in the temple and was, therefore, not entitled to occupy the said suit premises after he had ceased to be 'Pujari' and, therefore, the suit for eviction was filed by the plaintiff Deity through its manager and worshippers, yet since the said plaintiff was not registered public trust, therefore, in view of bar contained in Secdtion 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, the suit could not be maintained and, therefore, the same was rejected by the learned trial court while deciding issue No. 4 in favour of defendant. The first appeal filed before the learned trial court also failed while the appellate court rejected the appeal on 5/3/1993.
(3.) BEING aggrieved of the said judgments of lower courts the appellant has approached this Court by way of present second appeal.;