T. S. MISRA, J.:- This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that the plaintiff No. 2 is the Sarbarakar of the plaintiff No. 1 and for the removal of the defendant No. 1 from the management of the temple and the properties of the plaintiff No. 1 and the charge of the same to be handed over to the plaintiff No. 2 as the Sarbarakar of the plaintiff No. 1. The suit was filed by the idols Ram Lakhan Lalji and Mahadeo Ji through Rameshwar Bajpai as the plaintiff No. 1 and Rameshwar Bajpai as the plaintiff No. 2 against Brindaban, the first defendant, and Prakash Narain. The latter was impleaded as a pro forma defendant. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows :

2. One Jagannath was the owner of the properties in dispute. He had a brother by name Shyam Lal who had died in 1893 leaving behind a widow Smt. Kaushalya. Jagannath had a son Jwala Prasad who had pre-deceased him leaving behind his widow Smt. Narayani and a son Durga Prasad. Jagannath died in 1904. Durga Prasad also died a few days thereafter surviving him Smt. Savitri his widow. The three widows, Narayani, Savitri and Kaushalya executed a document in the year 1908, whereby they endowed all the properties, movable as well as immovable, in favour of the idols of Sri Ram Lakhan Lalji and Mahadeo Ji installed in a temple in one of the premises in question. In pursuance of that document of 1908. Smt. Narayani, and Smt. Savitri were to manage the properties so endowed during their lifetime. A scheme of administration was also laid down in that document. It appears that Smt. Savitri managed the affairs of the temple during her lifetime and, after her death in the year 1915, Smt. Narayani continued to manage the same. It further appears that in the year 1932, Smt. Narayani executed a will, whereby she authorised Smt. Siya Devi, Brindaban and others, mentioned therein, to act as Mukhya Dharma Kartas after her death. Smt. Siya Devi, on the demise of Smt. Narayani, entered into the management and continued to manage the properties till the year 1938, when she called Brindaban to look after the management along with her. Brindaban thus came on the scene and started with the management of the affairs of the temple along with Siya Devi. He continued to do so till the year 1944, even after the death of Siya Devi. At the end of the year 1944 or in the beginning of the year 1945, Brindaban, for the first time, began to assert that he was the nearest reversioner of Durga Prasad son of Jwala Prasad and was entitled to claim the properties as the heir of the said Durga Prasad. Thus, Brindaban started claiming to be the owner of the properties in dispute. After obtaining the permission of the Advocate General of U. P. under Section 92, C. P. C. a suit was filed in the court of the District Judge, Kanpur, being suit No. 1 of 1946, claiming various reliefs under Section 92, C. P. C. It was alleged in that suit that the trust was a public trust, and it was prayed, inter alia, that Brindaban be removed from the trusteeship. Brindaban, in that suit, denied the existence of the trust and claimed that the entire property belonged to him as the reversioner of Durga Prasad son of Jwala Prasad. Brindaban also filed a suit No. 43 of 1946 in the court of the first Civil Judge, Kanpur, for a declaration that he was the owner in possession of the properties left by the three ladies mentioned above. These suits were tried together by the District Judge, Kanpur, who dismissed both of them. Appeals were preferred against those decisions, being first appeal No. 318 of 1947 and first appeal No. 426 of 1948. These two appeals were also disposed of by a common judgment by this Court on 20th December, 1961. The suit under Section 92, C. P. C. was held to be rightly dismissed on the finding that the trust was not a public trust and that Section 92, C. P. C. was not applicable. The suit of Brindaban was also held to have been rightly dismissed because his title had come to an end and it was