B.L.YADAV
Sadanand Chaubey – Appellant
Versus
Bachchan Chaubey – Respondent
B.L. Yadav, J.
This is Defendant’s second appeal in a suit filed by the Plaintiff-Respondents for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant-Appellant from interfering with the Plaintiff’s management of the temple and its property.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Plaintiff-Respondents filed a suit with the allegations that one Mahangu Chaubey has agricultural plots and non-agricultural property in village Mohammadpur Dhonghadin Mutalika Rajapur, Pargana and Tehsil Mohammadabad, district Ghazipur. He died leaving his widow Smt. Parkali Kunwar. After his death his widow installed a temple of Sri Shiv Ji and Sri Mahadeo Ji. In order to perpetuate the memory of her deceased husband and for maintaining Ram Bhog etc. in the temple, she executed a registered deed of endownment dated 24th January 1921 dedicating a part of the property. She appointed herself as a Sarvarahkar of the temple and it was further provided that after her death the matter of Sarvarahkar ship shall be decided by the Court. Hanuman Chaubey, the Plaintiff’s father and Shankh-dhar Chaubey, the father of the Defendant No. 2 in the present suit, had instituted a suit No. 50 of 1921
Gopal Singh and Another Vs. Dile Ram (Dead) by Lrs. and Others
Gulwant Kaur and Another Vs. Mohinder Singh and Others
Jagannathan Pillai Vs. Kunjithapadam Pillai and Others
Kalawatibai Vs. Soiryabai and others
Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom Pillai and Another
Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao and Others Vs. Valluri Jagannadha Rao and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.