The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ownership and possession of a temple in a property dispute should be based on the evidence presented by the parties. The court also emphasized the importance of proving ownership and right to dispossess in such cases.

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

1. Facts leading to the present Regular Second Appeal are as under :

2. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff through its devotee and next friend Shri Maman Chand son of Mool Chand filed suit for possession against appellant -defendant No. 1 and respondent Nos. 7 to 11-defendant Nos. 2 to 6 for possession of the property in dispute. Plea has been taken that plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 through whom suit has been filed on behalf of Moorti Shri Radha Krishan Ji Maharaj Brajman Mandir Shri Radha Krishan and defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are Makboozadars in possession of plot of land bearing Khewat No. 16 khata No. 42, Khasra No. 473(1K-2M) situated in the revenue estate of Hidayatpur Chhaoni, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, as per jamabandi for the year 1972-73. On the northern portion of the said plot of land, there exists a temple, which is private temple of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 and defendant Nos. 3 to 6. Moorti Shri Radha Krishan Ji Maharaj is the presiding Deity in the said temple. In the site plan filed with the plaint, the temple was described by letters `ABCDEF and the boundaries of the temple have been given as under :-

"East :-

Gurgaon Delhi Road West :- Road leading to the Haryana Roadways Bus Stand. North :- Remaining portion of khasra No. 472 in which a well and tin shed are situated and remaining portion is vacant. South:-Remaining portion of khasra No. 473 in which two shops are built by the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 and remaining portion is vacant."

3 It is further averred that in village Hidayatpur Chhaoni status of makboozadar is equal to status of proprietor of land and that the land in possession of makboozadar can be alienated, inherited and in all respects managed by makboozadars like proprietor of land. Defendant No. 1 claimed to be nephew of defendant No. 2. They had taken possession of the said Mandir about four years before filing of this suit, without any right or title over the same. Hence, this suit for decree for possession on the basis of title.

4. Appellant-defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 filed written statement contesting the suit of plaintiffs, inter alia, on the ground that the temple is not a private temple and that the same is a public temple and that plaintiff-defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are not the owners of the temple. It is also denied that status of makboozadars is akin to status of proprietor. It is also denied that defendants had taken forcible possession of the Mandir. Rather specific plea has been taken that they are in possession of the temple as Pujari since the time of their forefathers and that earlier their forefathers were pujaris of the temple and that as per the custom pujari cannot be removed from the temple, as defendants and earlier their forefathers had been serving in the temple as pujaris, as a matter of right. Hence, it is contended that plaintiffs are having no right to take possession of the temple.

5. In the replication, plea was taken by respondent-plaintiffs that the temple is not a public temple and that rather the same is their private temple. It is also denied that defendants are in possession of the temple as pujaris, since the time of their forefathers.

6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court vide order dated 4.6.1979 :-

"1. Whether plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 and defendants No. 3 to 6 were in the enjoyment of proprietary and possessory rights over the property in suit and they have been illegally dispossessed therefrom by defendant Nos. 1 and 2? OPP 2. Whether there existed a private temple of plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 and defendant Nos. 3 to 6 with Moorti Shri Radha Krishan Ji Maharaj as Presiding Deity therein as alleged, and if so, to what effect? OPP 3. Whether plaintiffs No. 2 to 6 have no right to file this suit? OPD 4. Whether the defendants No. 3 to 6 have been unnecessarily impleaded as parties and if so, to what effect? OPD 5. Whether the proceedings of this suit are liable to be stayed on account of pendency of earl