Prakash Krishna, J.—

The present appeal has been filed under section 96 of CPC by the plaintiffs of O.S. No.1 of 1988. The said suit was filed under section 92 CPC for removal of defendant no.1 Hublal from the post of de facto trustee of the property in dispute. The suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that in a plot no. 2794 situate in Kasganj town (Etah) there is one temple known as 'Thakurji Gopalji Maharaj Cheepian' along with an Ahata, eight houses and thirty five shops. Gopalji Maharaj is the owner of the properties and the temple is popularly known as temple of Cheepian in Mohalla Mohan, Kasganj, District Etah. It was pleaded that the said temple is public and religious endowment. It was constructed by one Laxmandas Cheepi who had installed deity of Thakurji Maharaj. Sri Laxmandas endowed his entire property to the aforesaid temple which has been in existence for the last more than 140 years. Sri Laxman Das used to manage the affairs of the temple and its property and had been investing the income of the temple in Sewa, Pooja and Bhog etc. The temple was for public use and every Hindu has a right to worship therein. It is a public temple. Madhav Das, the adopted son of Laxman Das, was managing the affairs of the aforesaid temple. He made various improvements by raising constructions etc. After Madhav Das his son Narayan Das became manager of the temple and after death of Narayan Das his widow Smt. Ram Piari was looking after the management of the temple. It was further pleaded that Smt. Ram Piari was a very intelligent lady and she on 15th November, 1897 created a trust and S/S Ram Sahai, Govind Rai, Chhoramani sons of Brij Lal, Fateh Chand, Khoob Chand, Leeladhar, Thakurdas, Hardev Das and Sita Ram sons of Deep Chand were appointed trustees. It was also stipulated that after the death of the appointed trustees, their heirs will become the trustee. It was further stated that with the passage of time all the appointed trustees expired and thereafter, defendant no.1 became the manager of the temple. However, the defendant no.1 was not honest in his dealings and in discharge of his functions. He failed to manage the temple as per testament dated 15th November, 1897 executed by Smt. Ram Piari. The particulars of various misdeeds, as per assertion of the plaintiffs, committed by the defendant no.1 have been mentioned in the plaint. In the plaint it was prayed for that the defendant no.1 be removed from the de facto trustee and the scheme of administration for the management of temple and its property be framed by the civil court.

The suit was contested by the defendant no.1 by raising various pleas including that the temple in question is not public temple but it is a private temple of his ancestors with which any member of public including the plaintiffs has nothing to do. It was pleaded that the filing of the suit was wholly vexatious act of the plaintiffs. The defendant no.1 filed a suit for ejectment against one Virendra Kishore son of Babu Ram, one of the tenants of the disputed property and as a counter-blast the suit was filed. One of the plaintiffs is Pankaj Kishore son of Virendra Kishore. It was further pleaded that the suit against other tenants have been filed for ejectment by the answering respondent. All these tenants have colluded with each other to frustrate the ejectment suits against them.

The trial Court framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:-

1. Whether the temple Gopalji Maharaj in question was constructed by the forefathers of Smt. Ram Pyari? If not, its effect?

2. Whether the defendant no.1 Durgadas @ Hublal is the manager of the trust created by Smt. Ram Pyari for the management of the proprty, endowed in the temple Gopalji Maharaj, situate in Mohalla Mohan Kasganj?

The parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. The plaintiffs examined Sri Hira Lal as PW/1 and Hoti Lal Verma as PW/2. Certified copy of the Will dated 15th of Novem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document