Manohar Lall, J - (1.) In this appeal by the plaintiff the principal questions for consideration are whether an alienation by a previous mahant for raising funds to a thatched temple into a pucca one can be supported as being for legal necessity, and whether the suit is barred by limitation.
(2.) The facts are these. About eighty years ago, one Sunder Das, a devout sadhu of the Ramanuji Baishnab sect, came to village Barhi with his chela or Gurubhai Gopal Das. He constructed a hut on a piece of parti land in Gour quarter of this village and lived there for a few years. On the death of his Guru-bhari, who was the mahant of an asthal at Mokamah, Sundar Das became the mahant of that asthal and accordingly went over to live at Mokamah coming to Barhi only occasionally. The small asthal which Sundar Das had founded at Barhi was entrusted by him to the care fend charge of Gopal Das. In his lifetime Mahant Sundar Das as well as Mahant Gopal Das acquired considerable property for the asthal in village Barhi. Mahanth Gopal Das also founded-a dependant asthal in English quarter of the village, one mile distant from Gour, and both these asthals were under his charge and management. Mahant Sundar Das died in 1906 and Mahant Gopal Das died in 1907. Mahant Gopal Das had two chelas, Ram Das and Ram Pratap Das, and on his death was succeeded by his senior chela, Ram Das as mahant of both the asthals. Ram Das also died shortly after in the. year 1911. Ram Das had two chelas Mahabir Das and Bhagwat Das. At the time of the death of Ram Das, Mahabir Das was away to Brindaban, and Bhagwat Das took temporary possession of all the properties. On the return of Mahabir Das he took posses, sion of the properties and performed the bhandara of his Guru. It is said that Mahabir Das had to purchase peace with Ram Pratap Das, who had laid claim to the properties adverse to him, by making a money payment to him. The conduct of Mahabir Das in introducing later a young woman of the name of Alakhamba into the temple and making her a mahant of the dependant temple at English quarter and making a gift to her of 15 bighas of land was resented by the Baishnab Bairagis of the Ramanuji sect. Rampratap Das, the chela of Sundar Das, and some other mahants of that place instituted a suit on Slat May 1920 in the Court of the District Judge of Monghyr under Section 92, Civil P. C, for removing Mahabir Das and Mt. Alkhi and for the appointment of a new trustee who would be fit and worthy of holding the post of the mahant. That suit was disposed of by the learned District Judge on 8 June 1922 who held that the connexion of Mt. Alkhi with the asthal properties was most undesirable and that her very appearance was most suspicious as she was far too young and good looking to hold the post which she was said to have been occupying. He also found that Mahant Mahabir Das had been extravagantly wasting the properties of the asthal and was not in necessity of incurring a number of debts in suit by which he executed various deeds transferring about half of the properties of the asthal. Accordingly he ordered that: Mahanth Mahabir Das is hereby removed from his post of Mahanth of the two Asthals in suit and is deprived of all control of the Asthal property. Mt. Alkhi is similarly removed from the post of shebait. Mahabir Das must submit an account within three months of this date of all the Asthal property that has passed through his hand. For the future management of the Maths a new mahanth shall have to be appointed in order that a suitable man be chosen. I direct that the plaintiffs shall nominate a committee of five respeotable Hindus of the looality (to be approved of by me) who shall select a new mahanth, subject also to my approval. The plaintiff should submit the names of the committee within one week. I shall also consider any objections that may be urged by the defendant Mahabir Das to the names proposed.
(3.) On the 24 October 1922 the pleader of Mahant Mahabir Das moved the District Judge for stay of proceedings upon the ground that he had lodged an appeal in the High Court, but the learned District Judge refused to grant stay and even refused time to the defendant to move the High Court for a stay order. The learned District Judge then eon-sidered whether there was any valid objection to Mahant Ram Pratap Das, who had been nominated by the plaintiffs, being appointed as mahant of the asthals, and the only objection put forth by Mahabir Das, namely that he does not like Ram Pratap Das, was overruled. The result was that "the learned District Judge appointed Mahant Ram Pratap Das as the mahant o f the two asthals and put him in charge of the properties appertaining thereto upon his furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 1000. It was also directed that the Nazir of the Court should put the new mahant in possession of the immovable properties attached to the two maths, and the new mahant should start the work of cultivation at once. In accordance with that order, the Nazir went to village Barhi on 26 October 1922 and put the new mahant in possession of the maths and the immovable properties attached thereto on proclaiming it by beat of drums. The learned District Judge had directed that if any moveable property was found by the " Nazir it should be taken possession of by him and kept in custody of the Court till further orders. But as the only moveable property which was found was utensils and as Mahant Ram Pratap Das and the other Hindus who were present on the occasion stated that these articles were required for puja every day and that if they were removed the puja work will be stopped and the religious feelings of the Hindus would be wounded, the Nazir did not think it desirable to remove these articles and left them in charge of the new Mahant Ram Pratap Das. He also prepared a list of the properties and submitted a report to the Court on 28th October 1922. It is therefore clear that Mahant Mahabir Das was actually removed from the office and from the possession of the properties attached to the asthal on 26 October 1922.;