Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2020 and 22.12.2020 respectively passed by learned Additional District Judge 1, Gaya in Title Appeal No.45 of 1993 whereby the said title appeal was allowed on contest and thereby set aside the ex-parte order dated 11.06.1993 and decree dated 15.06.1993 passed by learned Subordinate Judge IV, Gaya in Title Suit No.38 of 1977 (60 of 1992) decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants filed Title Suit No. 38 of 1977 for declaration that the Vishnupad temple is a private temple of Gayawal Brahmin having right to manage the affairs of the temple and worship in accordance with the right of Vaishnav of Madhawa Sampradaya and it is not a public temple to be governed by the provisions of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 and as such the defendants have no right to interfere or bring change in the mode of doing worship. It is also prayed that the defendants be restrained permanently from interfering with the right and possession of the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever even by formation of any committee.

3. As per the plaint, the original plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 i.e. Sripati Lal Gurda, Govind Lal Gurda, Narayan Lal Katariar and Sadanand Gurda are Gayawal Pandas administering sufals and acting as priest to the Hindu Pilgrim visiting Gaya for the purpose of performing shraadh and pind dan to their deceased ancestors. They are numerous and cannot be conveniently named as parties in this suit and as such the plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 are instituting this suit in representative capacity under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. At Gaya, there is an ancient sacred place known as Sri Vishnupad Bhagwan joining as plaintiff no. 5 which, according to Puran and various Hindu religious text as also Gaya Mahatmya, portion of the famous and sacred Vayu Puran, had been handed over to the Gayawal Brahmins i.e. priest incarnated by Sri Brahma, the creator. Since the said pre-historic days, the said sacred place all along belonged to and still belongs to the said Gayawal Pandas or Gayawal Brahmins exclusively and as of right to the knowledge of the entire Hindu Community and there has or had been no interference in their right at any time by anybody. The Gayawal Brahmins are the exclusive Tirth Gurus for the Hindus of the entire country and amongst themselves, they have divided their zones.

4. Further case of the plaintiffs/appellants is that according to the Sastra as to be found in sacred Agni Puran and Vayu Puran, this Gaya Tirth was handed over by Sri Lord Brahma to the Gayawal Brahmins and they are enjoined that they will get their livelihood from this Tirth. This sacred foot mark of Lord Vishnu was subsequently encircled by a temple got constructed of stones by Rani Ahilya Bai in place of the old temple which had been built by the Gayawal Brahmins. This Rani Ahilya Bai was jajman of Sri Bihari Lal Maharwal and at his instance and for the benefit of her Tirth Guru and other Gayawal Brahmins, who all are known as Chaudah Saiya, inasmuch as Lord Brahma had incarnated the Gayawal Brahmins in 14 Gotras to assist the great sacrifice performed by him at Gaya.

5. The plaintiffs/appellants claimed that plaintiff nos. 1 to 4 collect the income from the properties of the temple to meet the expenses of Raj Bhog and puja and customary festivities and preservation and maintenance of the temple building of the plaintiff no. 5 and any deficit is met by contribution from the families of the Gayawal Brahmins commonly called Gayawal Pandas or priests. The offerings made at the Vishnupad are to be and have been always maintained and appropriated by the Gayawal Brahmins also known as Gayawal Pandas. The said ‘Asthan’ is a private one belonging to the plaintiffs and their ancestors since time immoral and they are the ultimate beneficiaries.

6. The grievance of the plaintiffs/appellants is that since last several years, the local authoritie