1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board" for the sake of brevity) as well as learned counsel for the private respondents in both the aforesaid miscellaneous appeals which have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. I.A. No. 32 of 2007 has been filed by the appellants in M.A. No. 10 of 2007, which is barred by the Law of Limitation, for condoning less than a months delay in the filing of the said miscellaneous appeal. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the appellants and the statements made in the interlocutory application, it appears that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in the filing of the said miscellaneous appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 32 of 2007 is allowed and the delay in the filing of the said miscellaneous appeal is condoned.

3. M.A. No. 386 of 2006 has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging order dated 7.9.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Court, Katihar refused to grant ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs for restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs management of the suit properties and religious functions and merely directed both the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit land including the management of the Mandir till the disposal of the suit bearing Title Suit No. 90 of 2005. In the said miscellaneous appeal defendant-respondent no.1 is the Board, whereas defendant- respondent no. 2 is the Chairman of the Committee appointed by the Board and the remaining defendants-respondents nos. 3-22 are members of the said committee. However, defendants-respondents no. 23 & 24 do not appear to be concerned with the injunction matter.

4. M.A. No. 10 of 2007 has been filed by defendants no. 2-22, the members of the committee appointed by the Board including its Chairman, also against the said order 7.9.2006 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Court, Katihar in Title Suit No. 90 of 2005 by which both the parties were directed to maintain status quo over the suit land including the management of the Mandir till the disposal of the suit. In this miscellaneous appeal respondents no. 1 to 5 are the plaintiffs, respondent no. 6 is defendant no. 1, namely the Board, whereas respondents no. 7 and 8 are defendants no. 23 & 24 of the suit not concerned with the injunction matter.

5. The aforesaid Title Suit No. 90 of 2005 was filed by the plaintiffs on 12.8.2005 for the following reliefs with respect to the suit properties measuring about 22 acres:

(a) Let be decided by the Court that Sri Sri 108 Maharani Durgajee is a family deity of the plaintiffs.

(b) Let it be decided that no trust of the public nature for religious or Charitable purpose has been created by the Donor.

(c) Let it be further declared that Sri Sri 108 Durgajee is a private deity of the plaintiffs.

(d) Let the defendant be restrained by the order of the court from interfering with the Puja of the family deity and the management of the suit property by the plaintiffs by order of permanent injunction.

(e) Let the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiffs.

(f) Let any other relief and reliefs, which in the opinion of the court, the plaintiffs be found to be entitled, be also awarded.

6. Immediately after the filing of the aforementioned title suit, the plaintiffs filed an injunction petition in the court below on 1.9.2005 for restraining the defendants from making any interference with the puja and other related activities being performed, by the plaintiffs on the eve of Dashara and also from making any interference with the management of the plaintiffs over the suit properties.

7. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit properties originally belonged to one Shankarwati Ojhain, who was a khatiyani raiyat of the suit land, and since she was an issueless widow, she adopted ancestor of the plaintiffs Mohan Lal Mishra as h