A suit for injunction to protect the property of a religious endowment can be maintained by a person who has a sufficient interest in the endowment, such as a member of the public who worships at the temple.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal who have lost in both the courts below.

( 2 ) ANAND Swarup Dutalish, Advocate, Umesh Chand Dublish, his father Shanti Sharan, and Shiv mahadeo Mandir situate in mohalla Munnalal Qasba Mowana Kalan in District Meerut filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises, as plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4. They impleaded Bishambhar sahai, father of appellant Vidya Sagar Sharma; Vishnu Sahai; Janardan Sahai and Keshar Sharan sharma sons of Pandit Shiv Datt Sharma residents of the same Mohalla as defendants in the suit.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs was that one Munnalal, the ancestor of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 constructed a temple known as "shiv Mahadeo" temple in Mohalla Munnalal and dedicted the property in dispute in the suit to the idol (plaintiff No. 4) to which it belongs. The temple, which is a very old construction and existed even in the year 1907, was for worship by the Hindu community in general. The house of the defendants, who were acting as Pujaris of the temple since the time of the ancestors of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, was situate to the west of the temple across the road. Plaintiff No. 1 visited the temple on February 8, 1967 in connection with thirteenth day ceremony of a member of his family Parmatma Saran Dublish when he noticed that the defendants had illegally brought a portion of the land of the temple to their personal use. They had made unauthorised constructions including a wall and had opened up a new gate as well. The members of the Hindu community and the worshippers were, thus deprived of the use of the temple land in its entirety.

( 4 ) THE suit was filed in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. after an application moved in that regard was allowed by the court. In this suit it was prayed that the defendants be restrained through permanent injunction from using any portion of the temple property as their personal property and further be directed by mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorised constructions set up by them.

( 5 ) THE defendants set up title in the suit property in themselves and claimed that the temple had been constructed by their ancestors and was their private temple. It was denied that the ancestors of the plaintiffs either constructed the temple or that the plaintiffs were ever in management thereof. It was also denied that the defendants or their ancestors were in occupation of the temple and its property as Pujaris. They also denied that they had caused damage to the temple. In the alternative, it was also pleaded that assuming that the property in suit was a public charitable trust, the suti, as framed, was not maintainable as it was not brought in accordance with Section 92, C. P. C. The right of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit was questioned. Some other pleas were also taken. The trial court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the entire disputed land belongs to the idol in question? (2) Relief if any. (3) Whether plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain this suit for the reasons disclosed in para 28 of the written statement? (4) Whether the suit is barred by Section 92 of the C. P. C. ? (5) Whether the suit is barred by estoppel?

( 6 ) IN respect of the first issue, it held after discussing the oral and documentary evidence on record at great length that the property in suit belonged to the idol and not the defendants. In respect of issue No. 4 it held that having regard to the nature of the relief sought, the suit could not be said to be governed by Section 92, C. P. C. Noticing that there was no evidence on behalf of the defendants in respect of issue no. 3 and that from the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs, it was clear that they were interested in the temple in suit as members of the public, it held under issue No. 3 that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit. Similarly, it found that the defendants failed to lead any evidence on issue No. 4 which had, consequ