PRELIMINARY

Introduction:

These four matters, two civil second appeals (Nos. 94/1983 and 119/1983) and two writ petitions (Nos. 1526/1988 and 1372/1997), being essentially of cross-cases between the rival parties and involving several inter-related facts and common issues, have been heard together; and are taken up for disposal by this common Judgment.

2. The second appeals arise out of the civil suit filed on 15.12.1964 by the plaintiff Raghunandan for cancellation of gift deed dated 30.06.1964 executed by the defendant No.1 Bhoori Bai in favour of the defendant No.2 Jagdish Lal and for recovery of possession of suit property. This suit (CO No.210/1971) was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge, Udaipur by the judgment and decree dated 29.05.1976. The appeal filed by the defendant No.2 (Appeal No.22/1982) was party allowed by the District Judge, Udaipur by the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.04.1983 wherein the learned Appellate Court, even while affirming the findings of the Trial Court that the plaintiff Raghunandan Pujari was the validly adopted son of the defendant No. 1 Bhoori Bai, modified the finding in relation to the rights of the defendant No.1 Bhoori Bai in the suit property and, while recognising her rights per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('the Act of 1956'), held the gift made by her in favour of the defendant No.2 valid to the extent of ½ share.

3. On the other hand, the writ petitions by the same contesting parties, Raghunandan Pujari and Jagdish Lal Pujari, arise out of the dispute between them over the rights of worship and receiving the offerings (herein referred to as 'sewa puja' rights) in the two temples at Udaipur known as Shri Raghunath Raiji temple and Shri Jeevan Swaroopji temple. The rotational turn for performing sewa puja by a particular pujari or shebait has been referred as ‘osra’. In CWP No. 1526/1988, Raghunandan Pujari has challenged the order dated 02.03.1988 as passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in its Revenue Department wherein Jagdish Lal Pujari was held entitled to the sewa puja rights in the aforesaid temples. Per contra, in CWP No. 1372/1997, Jagdish Lal Pujari has prayed for quashing of the order dated 06.03.1997 as passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan in its Devasthan Department and for allowing him to continue with sewa puja in the said temples in pursuance of the earlier orders made in his favour on 16.11.1990 and 18.07.1995.

Representation of the parties - Substitution of the legal representatives

4. Before proceeding further in these matters, it appears necessary to put the records straight so far the array of parties is concerned. It may be pointed out that the defendant No. 1 Smt. Bhoori Bai expired during the pendency of the suit and her daughter Smt. Moti Bai was substituted as the defendant in her place. The defendant No. 2 Jagdish Lal Pujari was the son of said Smt. Moti Bai. Smt. Moti Bai also expired during the pendency of the first appeal and that is how only Jagdish Lal Pujari and Raghunandan Pujari remained the contesting parties, who preferred these appeals and petitions. Both these contesting parties have also expired during the pendency of this litigation. Shri Jagdish Lal expired on 11.04.1998 whereas Shri Raghunandan expired on 26.03.2008. It is noticed that the legal representatives of late Shri Jagdish Lal have been substituted in the respective cases with orders on the respective applications. However, in relation to late Shri Raghunandan, while the application for substitution of his legal representatives was considered and allowed in CWP No. 1526/1988 on 19.08.2008, but no corresponding application/s and order/s for substitution of his legal representatives are available in the records of CSA No. 119/1983 and CWP No. 1372/1997. Of course, an application for substitution of the legal representatives of the respondent Raghunandan (IA No. 5404/2008) is available in the rec