Pujaries do not acquire ownership rights over a temple; their role is limited to worship and management.

JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

This first regular appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been filed by the defendants-appellants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1990 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karauli (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No.05/85, by which the trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No.2 (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) for declaration and possession.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and possession against the defendants in which it was mentioned that a temple of Murti Shri Dwarkadhish Ji was built by the Swarnakar and Zadiya Community. They have right to Mohatmin and Shevait. Members of the Swarnakar and Zadiya Community constructed two story temple with one Pator annexed thereto. Two shops were also got constructed for meeting out the expenses of Bhog-rag of the temple. Prior to the year 1931, Late Har Prasad grand-father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 was appointed as Pujari of the said temple. Said two shops, were also entrusted to Shri Har Prasad to control and manage for meeting the expenses of Bhog-rag. Pator (house) was also given to him for residential purpose. After the death of Shri Har Prasad, Shri Bhola Nath was appointed as Pujari of the said temple. After the death of Shri Bhola Nath, the defendants were appointed as Pujaries of the said temple. They began to represent themselves as the owners of the said temple and misutilized the rent of two shops. They changed the name of said temple from Dwarkadhish Ji to Satyanarayana Ji and did not handover vacant possession of the said temple to the plaintiffs. It was also mentioned in the plaint that in the year 1931, a survey was conducted by the then Government of Karauli and Shri Har Prasad, grand-father of the defendants admitted that the said temple is in the ownership of Swarnakar and Zadiya Community and he was Pujari of the said temple.

3. The defendants filed a written statement before the trial court and denied the averment made in the plaint and submitted that Shri Bhola Nath did not give any statement before the Devasthan Department on 27.07.1944. The said temple is of Satyanarayana Ji and not of Dwarkadhish Ji. He also stated that Shri Gopal Swarankar Zadia made a Sankalp of the temple in favour of one Hanuman Pandit, who was the ancestor of the defendants. So, the plaintiffs did not have any right against the defendants.

4. The trial court on the basis of pleadings, framed the following issues:-

I. Whether the disputed temple, the dharamshala annexed thereto as well as two disputed shops are the properties of Shri Dwarkadheshji and the same had been got constructed by all Swarnkar and Zadia’s of Karauli for the worship of idols?

(ii) Whether the disputed temple and the other property was entrusted by Swarankar and Zadiyas to the ancestors of defendant Nos.1 and 2 with the condition that so long as they shall worship, they shall continue to reside alongwith their families in Dharamshala annexed to the above temple?

(iii) Whether the ancestral of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were given two disputed shops simply for meeting out expenses of Bhog Rag of idol and other expenses?

(iv) Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 proclaimed themselves to be the owner of the aforementioned property and continued to spend the income arising therefrom for their personal uses and stared to cause damage to the property of the temple by demolishing it?

(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the defendant Nos.1 and 2 removed from the worship of the above temple and to take possession of the disputed property?

(vi) Whether the valuation of the disputed property is not less than 50,000/- and the deficit court fee has been paid?

(vii) Whether the suit was time barred?

(viii) What relief can be granted to the plaintiff? Additional issue as issue No.8A was also framed

(IX) Whether the disputed property is a trus