S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The present common judgment will dispose off two appeals – RFA (OS) 14/2008 (filed by the plaintiff Jeevan Das) and RFA (OS) 20/2008 (filed by Anil Sharma, defendant). Both the appeals are directed against the different findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement and decree of 20.12.2007 in CS(OS) 2350/1997. In the suit, Jeevan Das sought partition of residential premises located at Hanuman Mandir (hereafter referred to as “the suit premises”) and a decree or direction that he was entitled to a share equal to that of the defendant Anil Sharma in respect of the business carried on by him and by his father in a takhat in the temple premises.

2. The suit before the learned Single Judge was preferred by Jeevan Das, the son of Janki Das. The plaintiff (hereafter referred to as such) had another brother, Hari Shankar, whose son Anil Sharma was arraigned as the first defendant (hereafter called “the first defendant”). It was claimed that through Janki Das, (the plaintiff’s father and grandfather of first defendant), the said parties inherited the right in respect of the family residence, as also the business and the shop where from, during his life time, Janki Das was carrying on some business. The plaintiff contended that he and his brother, Hari Shankar used to carry on business from a shop for a period of six months eachon rotational basis, and after Hari Shankar's death, Anil Sharma in 1992 ousted him from the shop. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to sit in the shop or “takhat” and carry on business for six months each year. The plaintiff also urged that the first defendant made unauthorized constructions in the residence and had forcibly dispossessed him from a room in his occupation on the ground floor; he also alleged that the first defendant used to lock a toilet and the bathroom on the ground floor notwithstanding that he had an exclusive toilet and bathroom in his possession. On the strength of these averments, partition of the residential premises was sought; further a decree for accounts from 1933 in respect of the business carried on in the shop, as well as partition of the shop/takhat or use of it in the temple complex was sought.

3. The defendants denied the suit claim and argued that the temple existed from time immemorial. The land adjoining it was donated to the temple by Maharaja Jai Singh. It was also contended that six pujaris (priests) were managing the affairs of the temple and were given puja sewa rights. In terms of an understanding amongst them, out of 12 months each year, Mahant Sadhu Ram and Bholey Prasad were given two months to exclusively appropriate the puja sewa rights. Panna Lal and Nathu jointly got three months. Ram Chander and Radha Krishan got two and a half months each. It was stated that during the respective puja sewa period, offerings at the temple were appropriated by the six pujaris. It was argued that Radha Krishan was survived by three sons, namely, Janki Das, Shiv Lal and Laxman Singh. These three decided that the 2 ½ months puja sewa rights of Radha Krishan would be shared by them by each of them enjoying exclusive 15 days each year and one month every third year to appropriate the puja sewa rights i.e. for 2 years Janki Das got 15 days each year and the third year he got one month, and so on. Janki Das’ two sons shared his right to perform sewa puja 15 days each year for two years and one month in the third year by assigning 15 days every alternative year to each other and 15 days each in the third year. The defendants alleged that on 16.3.1931, the Governor General of India executed a temporary lease in favour of the pujaris of the temple demising 1.091 acres land for a period of 25 years, whilst referring to the lands adjoining the temple. It was alleged that the New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) took over possession of the lands adjoining the temple, in 1967-68. It was urged that after the shop inherited from Janki Das