The right to worship in a temple is a civil right, and a suit for a declaration and injunction to protect that right is maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

KAN SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal and the facts leading to it are briefly these:-There is a temple in village Kurabad, Tehsil Girwa, district Udaipur which has the idol of shri Adinath Bhagwan installed in it. The plaintiffs were the representatives of the Bees Panthi Amnai amongst the Digamber jains and the defendants were the representatives of Terah Panthi amnai of Digamber Jains. The plaintiffs claimed that the temple was constructed by the Bees Panthis some 50 years before the filing of the suit and some 37 years back the idol of shri Adinath Bhagwan was installed in it, according to the rituals and tenets practised by the Bees panthis. According to the plaintiffs, the mode of worship in the temple was according to the beliefs and usages of Bees Panthi Amnai. It is regarding this that the two sects are divided. According to the Bees panthis, the mode of worship is that the idol is anointed with saffron and flowers and fruits are offered to it in the course of worship. On the other hand, the mode of worship of the Terah Panthi is not by making any offer of saffron or fruits or flowers. They worship the idol without these offerings. The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that in the Bhadwa of Samvat year 2016, sometime in the afternoon the defendants who were Terah panthis washed away the saffron that was anointed on the idol in the morning by the Bees Panthis and this was, according to the plaintiffs, against their tenets- The plaintiffs apprehended that the defendants would change the entire mode of worship according to their beliefs which they were not entitled to do. It was on these averments that the plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the deity in the temple had been worshipped according to the tenets and rituals of the Bees Panthis and accordingly the defendants had no right to interfere with this mode of worship. The plaintiffs also sought a permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with this mode of worship of the plaintiffs. The defendants resisted the suit on a number of grounds. The learned additional Civil Judge, Udaipur, before whom the suit was filed, framed a number of issues. At this stage the Court is concerned with the following questions only:-

(1) Whether the temple of shri Bhag-wan Adinath situated in village Kurawad was constructed by the Bees Panthis and was worshipped according to the rituals and tenets of their sect and whether the plaintiffs have been worshipping the deity in the temple in dispute with saffron, flowers and fruits so that these offerings cannot be removed the very day? (2) Whether the Civil Courts cannot grant the relief asked for in the suit?

( 2 ) THE learned Additional Civil Judge decreed the suit in the following terms:-

"in this view of the matter the total result is that though the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that originally the temple was built according to those rites and ceremonies that were practised and followed by the bees Panthis, but they have not been able to prove that they could exclude the Terah Panthis entirely from worshipping in it, according to their beliefs, rituals and ceremonies. Therefore, a mutual compromise, a modus vivendi, will have to be found out and it is that the defendants shall have a right of worship in the temple in dispute for two hours after the sun-rise, thereafter the plaintiffs shall go to the temple and worship, the deity in their own way, and once the deity is anointed with saffron, it shall not be removed the same day by the defendants or any member of the Terah Panthi sect. "

( 3 ) AGAINST the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge, both the parties went up in appeal to the court of the learned District Judge, Udaipur. The learned District Judge on reappraisal of the evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that the temple in dispute was of the Bees Panthi Amnai. However, in spite of this finding in