JUDGMENT :- This is a defendants' appeal. In the suit which gave rise to this appeal the plaintiff alleged that the temple in which the deity of Bhuteshwar Mahadeoji Maharaj is installed is situate in old plot No. 47 which corresponds to the new plot No. 76. According to the plaintiff this temple was constructed by his ancestors. Thereafter a common ancestor Sri Man Nath became the sole owner of the temple and received the total offerings. He had three sons, Bal Nath, Gulab Nath and Nand Nath. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to half share in the offerings made in the said temple. This suit was contested by the appellants, who denied the various allegations made by the plaintiff and disputed the right of the plaintiff to receive the offerings made in the said temple. It was alleged by the defendants that out of the old plot No. 47 of 1872 twelve plots were carved out in the year 1901 which included the plot No. 76. The temple of Bhuteshwar Mahadeoji Maharaj was constructed in plot No. 76 which according to the defendants corresponds to the plot No. 1649.

2. The trial Court decreed the suit. Against that decision the defendants preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The defendants have now come to this Court in second appeal. By an order dated 23rd September 1972 this Court remitted three additional issues to the appellate Court below for fresh findings thereon. The appellate Court below has returned its findings on those issues. The defendants appellants have filed objections to those findings.

3. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that as the plaintiffs had failed to prove the case set up by them they were not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit. It was also urged that the plaintiffs could not prove their title to the property involved in the suit nor to the land on which the temple stands. This contention has, however, no force. It was admitted by the defendant Kailash Chandra that Bal Nath and the predecessors of the plaintiff were co-sharers in plot No. 76 and also in the temple situate in that plot. The courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the plaintiff was the son of Sanjai Nath, that the temple in question was an old one in which the plaintiff was also a co-sharer to the extent of 5/12th and that it was not established that there were two temples in plot No. 47 of 1872 or 76 of 1901.

The court below found that the temple in question is an old one coming down from the time of Man Nath, ancestor of the plaintiff and was not built by Mohan Nath and Budh Nath, as alleged by the defendants first set. The appellants in para. 5 of their written statement admitted that the temple in dispute is in fact situate in plot No. 76 of the settlement of 1901 which corresponded to plot No. 1649. The settlement extract of the khasra of the settlement of 1901 indicates that the old plot No. 47 was sub-divided in 10 sub-plots and plot No. 76 was carved out of the old plot No. 47/4 'Minjumla'. The settlement Khasra further discloses that the temple was situate in this plot. There is thus no manner of doubt that the temple in question is situate on a land in which the plaintiffs have had right, title and interest.

4. It was next urged that the plaintiffs have no right to receive offerings. It was argued that the offerings were made to the deity and as such they became the property of the deity installed in the temple and as such they became the property of the said deity. In support of this proposition the learned counsel referred me to certain observations made on page 194 of a book captioned as "The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts" by B. K. Mukherjea, third edition. The relevant paragraph on which reliance has been placed reads as follows :

"Like the trustee in English law, a Shebait has to act gratuitously and he cannot charge the Debutter estate for any remuneration on account of the time and labour he spends over his affairs. The position would certainly be different i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document