INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. This second appeal has impugned the judgment dated 4.1.1991 passed by the court of Additional District Judge whereby the judgment and decree of the trial judge dated 5.4.1983 was set aside. The Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.1983 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff. This was a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant society seeking a prayer that the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 16.12.1969 delivering articles of the Radha Krishan Bhagwan Mandir, Najafgarh, Delhi to the defendant society be declared null and void with a further prayer that the defendant society be directed to hand over the management of the Mandir to the plaintiff.

2. Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is as follows: (i) Late Mahant Manohar Dass a renowned practitioner in the Ayurvedic system of medicine had out of his professional income built various temples, acquired agricultural land, religious places such as piyao and dispensaries. (ii) Late Mahant Manohar Dass had executed his last will and testament dated 1.11.1953 by virtue of which he had bequeathed his Ayurvedic Dawakhana to Ram Chander and Pooja Path sewa to Net Ram. As per this will the Mahant had authorized one Jai Ram Dassji to give Ram Dass (plaintiff) in adoption to Net Ram. (iii) This will of late Mahant Manohar Dass had been probated in a probate petition filed on 10.5.1957. The order of the Additional District Judge dated 10.5.1957 was confirmed by the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 6.8.1965. (iv) By virtue of this will the Pooja Path Sewa dwelt upon Net Ram and the right to look after the Dawakhana fell to the share of Ram Chander. (v) Net Ram died on 18.12.1966. On the same day, the temple was sealed. (vi) In early 1967 under Section 25 of the Police Act the temple property being unclaimed was sealed by the police. (vii) On 25.8.1967 the seal of the temple was opened.

(viii) In proceedings before the ADM vide order dated 16.12.1969 he delivered the movable properties of temple which included ornaments of the mandir and cash to the

defendant society. This was subsequent to the inter se objections filed by the plaintiff and the defendant society before the ADM. (ix) Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that this act of the ADM dated 16.12.1969 is illegal, void and ultra vires. A further direction has been sought that the management of the temple and the properties of the temple be handed over to the plaintiff as he is the successor-in-interest of Net Ram in terms of the probated will dated 1.11.1953 of late Mahant Manohar Dass. (x) The defendant had contested the suit. It was denied that the plaintiff was entitled to inherit the property after Net Ram. By virtue of the order dated 16.12.1969 of the ADM the properties and the management of temple had been handed over to the defendant society which was a legal order and called for no interference. (xi) The trial judge had framed seven issues. 15 witnesses had been examined on behalf of the plaintiff while seven witnesses had come into the witness box on behalf of the defendant. The trial judge decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that Net Ram and after him the plaintiff namely Chela Ram Dass was entitled to the management and the properties of the Radha Krishanji Maharaj Mandir, Najafgargh, Delhi in terms of last will of late Mahant Manohar Dass dated 1.11.1953 which had been probated and had conclusively decided the rights of the parties.

(xii) Suit of the plaintiff was decreed; the defendant society was directed to hand over the possession and management of the temple and its properties to the plaintiff. (xiii) In appeal, the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 4.1.1991 reversed the finding of the trial judge. The appeal was allowed. Suit was dismissed. The first appellate court read into evidence the versions of PW-5 Jai Ram