AMITAV BANERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal by the defendants.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFs suit through Shri Janaki Prasad for removal of the defendants from Shebaitship of the idol-Behariji Maharaj-plaintiff No. 1 and for possession of the temple and the properties was dismissed by the trial Court. On appeal by the plaintiffs the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the suit was decreed only for joint possession of the properties described in the plaint. The suit in respect of the other reliefs was dismissed. The defendants have come up in second appeal in this Court and the plaintiffs have filed a cross-objection.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts are as follows: The plaint case was that Lachhman the common ancestor of the parties had constructed the temple of Behariji Maharaj in village Daulatabad and dedicated the property which belonged to him to the temple. He also executed an Iqrarnama on 1st Jan. , 1865 indicating the scheme of the waqf and also the order of succession in regard to the office of the Shebaitship. According to the terms of the Iqrarnama Parshot-tam, who was the eldest son of kewal Ram became a Sarbarkar of the disputed temple until he died in the year 1944. Janki prasad, plaintiff No. 2 claimed that he was the eldest son of Parshottam and in accordance with the order ofsuccession laid down in the Iqrarnama dated 1st Jan. , 1865 he was entitled to the office of the Shebaitship and to the possession of the properties. He claimed that defendants had wrongly mentioned their names as Sarbarkar of the temple and were also illegally in possession of the properties in dispute. Defendant No. 1 Satya Dev admitted that Lachhman was the common ancestor but denied that Lachhman was owner of the properties in suit. According to him Lachhman was the proprietor of only two plots Nos. 514 and 518. He, however, admitted that Lachhman had created a waqf and dedicated the aforesaid two plots to the temple of Behariji which he had constructed in his lifetime. The alleged Iqrarnama was said to be a forged document and it was stated that Lachhman had never executed it. Mathura Prasad was a sarbarkar of the temple even in the lifetime of Lachhman and the temple had fallen down during the management of Mathura Prasad. After the death of Lachhman, Parshottam got the temple re-constructed and dedicated his own properties to the temple to maintain it. Parshottam also executed a registered deed dated 2nd July, 1951 dedicating his own property to the temple but had at the same time laid down a new line of succession. The defendants have been serving as sarbarkar and were in possession of the properties in pursuance of the aforesaid deed. It was further pleaded that even if the deed dated 1st Jan. , 1865 was held to be valid and genuine then after the death of Janki Prasad, the plaintiff No. 2 Maheshwar Dayal had no right to be the sarbarkar of the temple in dispute and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE trial Court enquired into the question if Lachhman was the owner of the entire properties described in the plaint and had created a waqf in regard to all the properties mentioned in the plaint. Another question was whether Lachhman had executed a deed dated 1st Jan. , 1865 and whether Parshottam had created a waqf and laid down the line of succession. A fourth question was whether Maheshwar Dayal was entitled to maintain the suit. The trial Court held that the deed dated 1st Jan. , 1865 was a forged and fictitious document. Lachhman was the owner of only two plots Nos. 514 and 518 and he had created a waqf only in respect of the aforesaid two plots and not in respect of the remaining plots. The suit was dismissed. In the appeal by the plaintiffs the lower Appellate Court held that the document. Ext. 22, alleged to have been executed, by lachhman in the year 1865 was not a genuine document. Parshottam had not created any new waqf and the finding to the contrary of the trial Court was set aside. It was also stated that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document