JUDGMENT: * * * This is all the documentary evidence on the record in connection with the open site surrounding the temple building and Mr. Chan-durkar contends that this evidence is insufficient to substantiate the plaintiffs case that the open site surrounding the temple building belonged to the deities. As I have already pointed out, it is common ground between the parties that the temple was built on a portion of the present site at least about 100 years before the present suit. That some additional land was acquired from Government in 1868 cannot also be disputed. The actual order granting this land has cot been produced, though it does appear that in the proceedings of 1883-84 relating to the encroachment made by Nanakram, a certificate in connection with the grant of the site was produced by the Pujari, which was re turned to him. This land, however, was used for a garden for the temple and though there are references in some of the earlier papers which support Mr. Chandnrkars argument that the land was granted to Nanakram, it cannot be inferred from them, as I have already stated, that the grant was personally in favour of Nanakram and his family. The execution of the rent note in favour of Nanak ram on 26-5-1923 (Ex. P-4) by Laduram and Chhedilal is also to some extent in favour of the defendants. But as I have already stated, the ex planation of the plaintiffs that this rent note came to be executed in order that the Pujaris may receive regularly payment for their maintenance directly from the lessees seems to be borne out by oral evidence as well as the evidence of the ac counts books produced by Chhedilal. But a more significant fact is that an area of 14000 square feet" or more was purchased in 1926 by the Panchas (Ex. P-7) and got entered in the name of the temple deities in 1931 (Ex. P-9), and the entries in the record-of-rights Exs. 1-2-D-4 and 1-2-D-5 clear ly support the plaintiffs case that the owner of the land was the Deosthan itself. It is significant that the Deosthan is shown as the occupant in these entries in respect of the entire open site admeasuring 39868 square feet. It is conceded by Mr. Chandurkar that these, entries in the record-of-rights must be presumed to be true, but he says that the presumption raised by these entries is liable to be rebutted and is so rebutted by the documents of 1883-84 to which a reference has already been made in detail. I am not prepared to accept this argument and hold that the documentary evidence relied upon by the defendants rebuts the presumption raised by the record-of-rights entries on the record.

(2) Then we come to the evidence relating to the reconstruction of the temple building in 1918. As I have already stated, it is the plaintiffs case that these buildings were reconstructed in 1918 by raising on a large scale subscriptions from the public and this reconstruction was followed by in stallation ceremonies in which dedication was made in favour of the plaintiff deities. It is not denied by the defendants that the rebuilding of the temple took place in 1918; but it is alleged by them that a considerably less amount than what is alleged by the plaintiffs was spent and it is also contended by the defendants that apart from public subscriptions, Manuram also spent for the repairs and re building. In support of the defendants allegations, there is hardly any reliable evidence on the record. As I have already pointed out, Rameshwar, defendant No. 4, though he filed a written statement, was present in Court only once but thereafter made himself scarce and did not step into the witness-box. The evidence of 1-2-D. W. 3 Motilaldis closes that he summoned Rameshwar in order to prove his title, and though Rameshwar was present in Court on 10-7-1952, no monies seem to have been paid by the defendants in respect of his allowance, nor does it appear that any serious attempt was thereafter made to secure his presence in Court to give evidence. On the other hand, the plaint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document