MODI, J. — This second appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decres of the District Judge, Bhilwara. dated 24-8-66 where by he accepted the appeal of the defendant-respondent Kesarlal and reversed the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Shahpura dated 26-2-65.

2. The relevant facts which are no longer in dispute may briefly be stated as follows—

The parties to the appeal consist of two appellant and nine respondents. All of them are descendants of a common ancestor Radha Kishan. The Former Me war State in ancient times appointed Radha Kishan and one Sitaram as shebaits of the temples of Chaturbhuj ji alias Charbhujaji and Mahadeoji Maharaj situated at Village Dhod. The Former Mewar State also allotted certain agricultural lands to these deities and it is common ground between the parties that those lands were divided in equal shares by Radha Kishan and Sitaram. The Sewapuja of the deities was performed by pali system in alternate months, that is, Sewapuja for one month was performed by the descendants of Radha Kishan and in another month by the descendants of Sitaram. The offerings during the month used to be received by the shebaits as per turn of the Sewa-puja. The last descendant of Sita Ram was Bhuralal. On 29-12-61 Bhuralal by means of a gift-deed transferred his right of she baitship and the lands possessed by him described in para 6 of the plaint, in favour of the defendant Kesarlal who is, as already stated above, one of the descendants of Radha Kishan. Kesarlal thus stepped into the shoes of Bhuralal. He took possession of the lands described in para 6 of the plaints. He also commenced performance of Sewa-puja of the deities and received offerings just like Bhuralal from the date of the gift-deed, that is, 29-12-61. Bhuralal expired issueless some-time in February 1962. The appellants Nandlal and Bansilal then instituted the present suit on 22-10-62 against Kesarlal and his father Badrilal claiming the following main reliefs —

¼1½c[fkk ukek Hkso[kkZ &29-12-61 feutkfuc Hkwjkyky cgd eqn~nk;yk dskjyky eUlq[k ¼dkmUly½ Qjek;k tkos vkSj bl dk uksV lc jftLVªh gks yxk;s tkosA

¼2½ ;gds&;g djkj fd;k tkos ds eqroQh Hkwjkyky tks FkksMs pkjHkqtkth egkjkt dk iqtkjh FkkA mlds gd lsok iwtk ds o vkjkth ekQh iwtukFkZ mijksDr efUnj ds eqn~nkbZ;ku o eqn~nk;ys u- 2 cjkcj ds gdnkj gSA ftldk o.kZu okni= dh /kkjk ua- 6 esa fd;k x;k gS ;kuh t;sa pkjHkqtkth egkjkt okds FkkMs ds efUnj dh ,d o"kZ esa ,d ekg rd eqn~nkbZ;ku o ,d ekg rd eqn~nk;yk ua- 2 lsok iwtk djus ds vf/kdkjh gS o blh izdkj okn i= dh /kkjk ua- 6 of.kZr vkjkth ekQh dh vkenuh dks cjkcj fgLls esa ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA

¼3½ ;gds&eqn~nk;ysge ds fo:} gqDe bErukbZ loZ dkyhu tkjh Qjek;k tk;s fd og eqn~nbZ ;ku dks Jh pkjHkqtkth egkjkt okfd ekStk FkkMs dh ,d o"kZ esa vksljs ls ,d ekg rd yxkrkj lsok iwtk djus ls ugh jksdsA vkSj blh vluk; esa tks vkenuh gksos ysus ls ugh jksds o okni= tsj /kkjk ua- 6 esa of.kZr vkjkth ekQh dh vkenuh vk/kh ysus ls ugh jksdsA^^

On an objection by the defendants, the remaining descendants of Radha Kishan were impleaded as defendants Nos. 3 to 9 the main allegation as disclosed in the plaint was that Bhuralal had no right to execute the gift-deed and transfer his right of shebaitship and the lands possessed by him in favour of Kesarlal. The suit was contested by the defendants Kesarlal and Badrilal. The trial court framed as many as 13 issues and after evidence decreed the suit holding that Bhuralal had no right or authority to alienate his right of shebaitship under the gift-deed dated 29-12-61. On appeal by the contesting defendants, the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, set aside the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit on three-fold grounds. In the first instance, he held that the suit was not triable by the civil court as it related to the agricultural lands. Secondly, it was held that Kesarlal being in exclusive enjoyment of the share of Bhuralal in respect of the worship of the deities and the agricultural lands, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document