A suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of temple properties is barred by O. 9, R. 9 of the C. P. C. if the plaintiffs have previously filed a suit for the same cause of action which was dismissed for default.

UDAY SINHA, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a judgment and decree passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur dated the 10th April, 1963.

2. The plaintiffs suit was for (a) declaration that the disputed properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint belonged to the deities Ramji Janakiji through their Shebait Ramratan Dasji and (b) for recovery of the suit properties mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint. The plaintiffs case was that the suit properties belonged to the deity Ramji Janakiji, plaintiff No. 1 of which plaintiff No. 2 was the Shebait. The properties appertained to a temple at Jugsalal in the town of Jamshedpur known as Ramtikari temple. According to the plaintiffs, the deity was consecrated by Ram Kumar Das, who was its Shebait and was managing the properties in suit in that capacity. The properties of the temple were acquired by him from Charan Pradhan. According to them, Ram Kumar Das died in 1934. On his death his Chela Kalyan Das took over the management of the properties as Shebait and performed the religious obligations required of him in respect of the deities. Kalyan Das died in 1944 without nominating anyone as successor Shebait. After his death Ramratan Dass, plaintiff No. 2 "being the nearest collateral" became the Shebait of the Ramtikari temple and continued in possession of the suit properties. According to the plaintiffs, Ramratan Dass happened to be the Shri Mahanth of Papuria Math at Puri and, therefore, he could not manage the day-to-day work personally. He, therefore, deputed his representative Gangaram Dass to perform the Rajbhog, etc. of the deities, and to manage the properties of the Ramtikari temple. Gangaram Das was only a nominee of plaintiff No. 2 and was not a Shebait himself. In 1953 Gangaram Das relieved himself of the obligations of the Ramtikari temple and went away on pilgrimage. Thereafter, the plaintiffs contend, Ramratan Das requested defendant No. 1 Mauni Babu Kale Kambalwalla Jai Siyaram Dasji to look after the deities, to perform the religious duties and to manage the properties of the temple. As it happened, defendant No. 1 fraudulently became independent of the Papuria Math. It has been alleged that he did not render accounts of the collections and expenses to plaintiff No. 2 and, therefore, a registered notice was sent to him for giving accounts for the properties of the temple. The registered notice having proved ineffective, plaintiff No. 2 deputed Ganpat Rai to defendant No. 1 for the same purpose, but defendant No. 1 did not pay any heed to him. Plaintiff No. 2, therefore, filed Title Suit No. 18 of 1955 for declaration of title of Mahanth Ramratan Dass, plaintiff No. 2, to the properties mentioned in Schedules B, C and D of that plaint (the properties mentioned in the schedules of that suit were the same as the suit properties in the present suit). That suit was dismissed for default on 16-5-1957. An application for restoration of the suit was filed in terms of O. 9, R. 9 of the C.P.C., but that also was dismissed for default. In regard to Title Suit No. 18 of 1955, the plaintiffs have contended that that suit was ill advised, as plaintiff No. 1 was the real owner of the properties and not plaintiff No. 2 and, therefore, the plaintiffs abandoned that suit. The plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the properties of Ramtikari temple and as defendant No. 1 had failed to render accounts, the present suit had to be filed for the reliefs mentioned above. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were impleaded in the suit on the averment that they were looking after the temple on behalf of defendant No. 1, who often used to remain away from the temple at Jugsalal.

3. This case of defendant No. 1 is based more than one plank. The first part of his case is that the Ramtikari temple was a public Hindu Religious Trust, the management of which vested in the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts. In 1959 the Board recognized Mauni Baba, defendant No. 1