1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellants/defendants are aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 7.3.1988 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Regular First Appeals No.9/1978 and 15/1985 by which the first appellate court dismissed appeal no.9/1978 preferred by the appellants/defendants and upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 7.4.1978 and allowed the appeal no.15/1985 preferred by the plaintiff against the order of trial court dated 20.7.1985 passed on issue no.20A framed by the first appellate court.

3. The present litigation has a checkered history as the plaintiff including 7 other persons, who are also parties in the present suit, instituted civil original suit no.11/54 against Gordhan Lal and others. Said suit was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.1957 and regular first appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the first appellate court. The defendants preferred second appeal before this Court which was registered as S.B.Civil Second Appeal No.8/1958 (Dhananjai v. Ram Kumar, reported in RLW 1962 page 18 . Said appeal too was dismissed on 14.9.1962. In the said litigation, the plaintiffs sought relief of declaration that they are hereditary pujaris of Charbhuja Ji Temple of Bhilwara. The plaintiffs also sought relief of possession and for past, pendente lite and future mesne profits.

In Dhananjai's case (supra), this Court held as under:-

"3. From the evidence on record it is established that the temple in suit was founded by one Sadaram Deopura who belonged to the Maheshwari Community. He was not residing in Bhilwara where the temple was situated, but was a resident of Udaipur. From a grant made in Smt. 1814 by the erstwhile State of Mewar it appears that Lalji and Kesarji were the Pujaris of the temple in that year and land was granted to them by the State in this capacity. The plaintiffs are descendants of Lalji and Kesarji. They are the hereditary Pujaris of this temple. They do Seva Puja in turn of 15 days each by rotation. In Smt. 2005 Birdi Chand, one of the descendants of Lalji and Kesarji, died leaving a widow Smt. Gauri who executed a sale-deed in respect of her husband's Osra to one Nathulal. This sale-deed was challenged by Gokaldass father of Prabhulal plaintiff No. 3 by means of a suit which was instituted in Smt. 2005. During the pendency of the suit Birdi Chand's Osra was handed over to defendants Nos. 1 to 4 by the remaining hereditary Pujaris. This arrangement worked satisfactorily till Smt. 2009. On 26-3-52 when Kalyanmal plaintiff's Osra was to begin defendants Nos. 1 to 4 did not hand over the charge of the temple to him. They handed over the charge of the temple to Dhananji defendant no. 5. The defendants thus dispossessed the plaintiffs from the office of hereditary Pujaris. The present suit was then instituted on 17-1-54 against these 5 defendants. It appears from the evidence on record that members of the Maheshwari Community have been4 managing the temple as de facto managers. They were not satisfied with the Seva Puja carried on by the plaintiffs and in an attempt to displace them they instigated defendants 1 to 4 to hand over the possession over the temple as Pujari to defendant No. 5."
(Emphasis supplied)

4. It was submitted by the defendants of suit no.11/1954 before this Court in second appeal that the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed as the members of Maheshwari Community, who were acting as defacto Managers, were not impleaded as party and it was further submitted that in the suit of the nature, the decree for mesne profits cannot be granted. This Court held that the suit was properly framed and cannot be dismissed for want of any necessary party. For mesne profits, this Court held that it can be awarded. With the decision on these two questions, this Court affirmed the judgments passed by the two courts below recognising the right of the plaintiffs