JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—These are connected applications arising out of a suit under sec. 92 C.P.C. instituted by Madan Gopal Kabra and Lakashmi Narain Kabra against Raja Pratap Singh and Goverdhanlal Kabra in respect of three temples situated at Kucharnan.

2. It was not disputed before me that all these three temples were founded by the ancestors of Raja Pratap Singh. The oldest of these temples is that of Natwar Lal Ji which was founded in Smt. 1756. This temple is situated inside the kot, that is, the wall enclosure containing the places of the Thakur of Kucharnan. It may be mentioned here that defendant No. 1 is a direct descendant of the Thakurs of Kucharnan.

3. The next oldest temple is that of Chatur Bhujji, the prathishtha of which was performed in Smt. 1855 by one Surajmal, presumably the then Thakur of Kucha-man vide Ex. A. 5. The third temple was built in Smt. 1969 by the wife of Raja Sher Singh the then Thakur of Kucharnan. Its Prathishtha ceremony was performed by Raja Shersingh in the same year vide Ex.A-4. Both these temples were constructed just outside the Kot on land belonging to the Thakur of Kucharnan. There is a covered passage leading from the Kot to the back of these temples for use by the ladies to the family of the Thakur for having Darshan in these two temples.

4. It is also not disputed that these temples were endowed with considerable properties by the ancestors of defendant No. 1. The accounts of the income and expenditure of these properties were entered both in the account books of the Thakur of Kuchman as well as in the Bahis maintained in the temples.

5. The properties attached to the temples were managed by the Thakur of Kucharnan till March, 1952 when the then Thakur Raja Hari Singh (adoptive father of defendant No. 1) constituted a committee of four trustees, including himself, to manage the endowed properties by means of trust deed Ex. 1 dated 19.3.52 which was registered on 26.3.52. The trustees were RajaHari Singh deceased, Raja Pratap Singh defendant No.1. Goverdhanlal Kabra defendant No. 2 and Madan Gopal plaintiff No.1

6. The suit was instituted after obtaining the consent in writing of Advocate General for the removal of defendant No. 1 from trusteeship, for directing accounts, settling a scheme and for granting such other reliefs as the court may deem proper to do having regard to the circumstances of the case.

7. The suit was resisted by Raja Pratap Singh defendant No. 1 inter alia on the ground that the temples in suit are private temples and the religious trusts, for the upkeep and maintenance of the temples, are consequently private trusts to which sec. 92 CPC is not applicable.

8. The trial of the suit by the learned District Judge Merta did not proceed smoothly. The plaintiffs sought permission to file a replication to the written statement of defendant No. 1. This permission was not granted. There was interference on the part of learned District Judge with the cross-examination of the witnesses of defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs prayed that defendant No. 1 should be examined as a witness first in accordance with the rules framed by this Court. The learned District Judge overruled their objection. Defendant No. 1 had applied for a local inspection before the examination and cross-examination of his witnesses was over. The plaintiffs objected to such a local inspection being made before the evidence of the parties had been concluded. The learned District Judge however overruled this objection also and made a local inspection. On 7.1.63 the plaintiffs filed an application for issuing notice of the suit to the Devasthan Commissioner under sec. 72 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act (No. 42 of 1959) and not to proceed further with it till this has been done. The learned District Judge recorded an order on this application that he shall not determine the question whether or not it is necessary to give notice to the Devasthan Commissioner till after he had recorded the entire evidence in the suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document