JUDGMENT

Virendra Kumar Mathur, J. - This regular Civil First Appeal under section 96 CPC has been filed against judgment & decree dated 05.06.2010 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur, in Civil Original Suit No. 10/2010, whereby plaint of appellants for declaration and permanent injunction was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC.

2. Briefly stated, the appellants filed a civil suit against the defendant-respondents for declaration and permanent injunction with the contention that there is a historical temple, situated at village Palasma, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur, which was constructed by ancestor of the appellants-Prabhuji Joshi, who had constructed and established in all 5 temples.

3. After narrating entire history of placing deities in the temples in the suit, inter alia, it was submitted that a land measuring 3063 bighas was granted to appellants'' ancestors by then Maharaja Sumer Singhji. It was also stated that since time of late Shri Prabhuji, the descendents of late Prabhuji Joshi had been regularly doing ''seva-pooja'' in these temples and Pujaris and Sadhus were appointed as per need. It was also submitted annual fair is also conducted on Jal-Jhulani Gyaras, which was entirely conducted, controlled and managed by the family members of late Shri Prabhuji Joshi. An incident about theft of an idol from temple on 30.08.2009 was also mentioned by appellants.

4. It was submitted that the temple premises belong to family of the appellants but the respondents are bent upon to deprive them from their property (temples), to which they have no right. It was stated that the private defendants have no right or title over the property of the temples, they are mere Pujaris and they have no right to interfere in the management, seva-pooja and properties of the temples. They are liable to be restrained from interfering in the properties of appellants in any manner.

5. It was also prayed that a declaration may be made to the effect that the properties, described in para 13 of the plaint, are properties of late Shri Prabhuji Joshi and his descendents and the plaintiff-appellants have right to maintain the properties and they have inherited rights from their ancestors. It was further prayed that the respondent-defendants may be restrained from interfering with the management of the properties and they may also be restrained from damaging the properties in any way. The defendant-respondent Bishan Singh and others filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC before the trial court and prayed for rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on various grounds, whereby it was stated that the temple is a public Trust and the proceedings for registration of the Trust are pending before the Devsthan Department and hence, the civil court has no jurisdiction. The appellants submitted reply to the application moved under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and submitted, inter alia, that the suit does not relate to public Trust and the reliefs claimed in the suit can very well be granted by the civil court and prayed for rejection of the aforesaid application of defendants filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

6. After hearing arguments of the parties, the learned trial court vide order dated 05.06.2010 proceeded to reject the plaint of the appellant-plaintiffs and directed for framing of the decree to that effect.

7. Being aggrieved by the order & decree dated 05.06.2010, the appellants preferred this appeal on the grounds that the trial court failed to construe the law on the point, as no plaint can be rejected on the basis of allegations made by defendants. It was submitted that for deciding maintainability of a suit, the court is required to merely look into the statements made in the plaint and nothing else. It was further contended that while deciding the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the court can not consider the defence pleas taken by the defendants because it is settled law that the jurisdiction to