( 1 ) THIS is defendants' civil revision from the judgment and order dated January 17, 1995 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 1995 delivered by Sri M. S. Rajendra Prasad, District Judge, Karwar dismissing the defendants' appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 1994 delivered by Sri S. Mariyappa Civil Judge, Karwar allowing the plaintiffs' application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with sections 94 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Shivaram and Others v Ganapathi and Others , restraining the defendant, their men, agents and servants from interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of their rights and benefits as archakas of sri Vinayak Dev Temple, Idagunji in Honnavar taluk and directing them not to interfere with the plaintiffs' right to offer pooja, viniyogas, performance of ganahoma, vratas and other rituals as per tradition and customs of the temple as well as restrain them from employing the services of any other person/priest to perform the above functions or duties till the disposal of the suit.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are - that the plaintiffs-present opposite party/respondent filed the suit for decree of declaration declaring the plaintiffs i. e. , the present respondents to be the hereditary archakas of Sri Vinayak Dev Temple in Idagunji. The plaintiffs further claimed the relief that the said right of hereditary archakas is in the nature of property carrying emoluments as they are in consonance with the legal character to officiate as upadivant priests. Plaintiffs further claim that the legal character of the priest, referred to in relief 'a' as based on upadhi rights, is in the nature of property in favour of the plaintiff-respondents and defendants have no right to terminate the said archaka upadis of plaintiff or their customary right of priesthood. The plaintiffs have claimed a declaration or a declaratory decree to the effect that the order of termination issued by the defendants on 21-9-1994 is illegal, void and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff claimed the decree for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff in performing their duties as archaka and for incidental reliefs. As per the plaint allegations, the plaintiffs claim themselves to be the priests-archakas of the temple in question viz. , Sri mahaganapathi Vinayak Temple of Idagunji. The plaintiffs allege that since the installation of the deity, the plaintiffs have been acting as archakas of the deity institution and also the purohit of devotees seeking divine grace and blessings by conduction of seva, vratas, homa and other rituals. The plaintiffs' case is that the plaintiffs and their ancestors have been officiating and acting as the manager and priest of the temple and that after the advent of the Bombay Endowment Act the trustees were got appointed and among the trustees one used to be the member of the family of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that till the end of last century from the original consecration the plaintiffs family has been acting in dual capacities i. e. , as archaka-purohits on the spiritual side and custodian managers on the temporal side and officiated as shebaits. The plaintiffs allege that the branches of plaintiff 1 on one side and plaintiffs 2 and 3 on the other have made arrangement of sharing their duties called poojapali and in accordance with that arrangement plaintiff 1's branch gets six months while plaintiffs 2 and 3 enjoy the poojapali for another six months. They have stated that the right to officiate as archakas under upadi with emoluments attached to it corresponds and commensurates with the vritti of purohit acting as a link between devotee and deity soliciting its grace and blessings. The plaintiffs further alleged that ancestors of plaintiff were not appointed by an authority and when the first consecration took place there were no trustees. According to the plainti