Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is defendant’s appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) arising from judgment and decree dated 25.4.1980 passed by Sri Santosh Kumar Misra, District Judge, Jhansi in Civil Appeal No. 197 of 1979 allowing appeal partly after setting aside judgment and decree dated 2.8.1979 passed by Sri R.S. Morya, Munsif, Court No. 4, Jhansi in Original Suit No. 365 of 1972 whereby suit was dismissed. Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) has decreed the appeal partly directing defendants to remove from working as Pujari or even as Manager of disputed temple and properties attached with temple. Defendants were also permanently restrained from interfering in plaintiff’s management of disputed temple and from interfering in plaintiff’s appointment of another Prabandhak of disputed temple and properties attached with it. LAC has further clarified that plaintiff shall have no right to transfer or gift away in any manner disputed temple or properties attached therewith and plaintiff shall be merely a Shebait-cum-Manager thereof. However, plaintiff can let out disputed houses, shops and trees of groves and get usufruct income of properties of temple merely as Shebait, but, would not use as personal money except for the benefit of temple.

2. Original Suit No. 365 of 1972 was instituted by Laxmi Narain, plaintiff-respondent (now substituted by legal heirs) in the Court of Munsif, Jhansi vide plaint dated 10.5.1972. Suit was instituted for providing statement of accounts as also for grant of mandatory as well as prohibitory injunction. Plaint case set up by plaintiff-respondent is, that Smt. Radha Rani, widow of Ram Dayal resident of Gursarai, as per desire of her deceased husband, adopted Ganeshi Lal, father of plaintiff. Ram Dayal and his wife were religious people and they got constructed a Ram Janki Temple about 80 years back in the garden (Bagicha) of their house at Gursarai. Deity Ram Janki was installed as per religious traditions. Aforesaid temple became famous in the name of “Mousuma Garha”. It was a private temple of Ram Dayal. He employed defendant Rajjoo Lal (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) on following conditions:

^^v- ;g fd efUnj esa lsok iwtk èkkfeZd jhfr ds vuqlkj izfroknh djsxk vkSj mRlo leS;k lnSo cM+s izse ls eukrk jgsxkA

c- ;g fd [kpkZ o vkenuh dk fglkc odk;nk j[ksxkA

l- ;g fd izfroknh ds efUnj ds fy;s tks izlkn Hkksx fo;kjh cuk;sxk mldks ifgys Hkxoku dks fu;ekuqlkj p<+kdj vkSj vius fy;s Hkh mlh esa ls og izlkn o Hkkstu ikrk jgsxkA

n- ;g fd izfroknh efUnj dh tk;nkn dks lqjf{kr j[ksxk vkSj mldh ekdwy fgQktr j[ksxk vkSj fdlh rjg ls mldks [kqnoqnZ o cjckn ugha djsxkA**

“A. That the defendant shall perform the priestly duties in the temple as per religious customs and rites; and he shall always keep celebrating Samaiyya Utvas with deep fervour.

B. That he shall maintain accounts for income & expenditure properly.

C. That Prasad Bhog to be prepared by Vichaari for defendant’s temple shall be duly offered first to the Deity; out of which he shall continue to get prasad and food for himself as well.

D. That defendant shall keep temple property safe and take appropriate care; and he shall, in no way, destroy or damage it.”

(English translation by Court)

3. The entire income of garden (Bagicha) used to be spent for maintenance of temple. Later on, three shops and three houses were also made available for meeting expenses of temple. It was clearly instructed that income of those properties would be used for the purpose of temple only. Defendant discharged his duties as Pujari very diligently and honestly. After death of Ram Dayal, defendant continued to discharge his duties as Pujari. Smt. Radha Rani, after death of her husband, allowed defendant to look after personal properties including authorizing him to look after Court cases also. Plaintiff’s father Ganeshi Lal died in 1942 and grand-mother i.e. Smt. Radha Ra