JUDGMENT

Ameer Ali, J.

The dispute in this case relates to the shebaitship of a Hindu temple belonging to the Ballavacharya Gossains situated at a place called Jatipura in the Muttra district of the United Provinces of India.

2. The Ballavacharya cult, in reality an offshoot of Vaishnavism, was founded in the 16th century of the Christian Era by one Ballavacharya, who is usually designated among his followers and disciples as Maha Pirbhuji. He and his descendants, who constitute the Ballavacharya Gossain Kul, are held in great veneration by the members of the sect and regarded as the incarnation of the famous and favourite Hindu deity Krishna, whom in common with other Vaishnavs (Vishnuvites) they worship. The cult established by Ballavacharya differed in several particulars from the practices in vogue among other votaries of Krishna, the principal point of difference consisting in the fact that he repudiated the practice of celibacy and asceticism practiced by the other Gossains.

3. The Ballavacharya Gossains, in other works, the descendants of Ballav, possess several principal temples, each of which in presided over by a member of his Kul or family, who is styled a Tikait.

4. The defendant Gordhan Lalji is in possession of one of the most important of these temples, if not the most important, which is situated at Nathdwara in the Odeypore State.

5. In order to make the contentions of the parties intelligible, it is necessary to state in this connection certain admitted facts relating to the customs and usages in vogue among the Ballavacharya Kul.

6. In the first place the Ballavacharyas do not intermarry in their own Kul, as the members belong to the same gotra. They take wives from among the Bhats, a well-known Brahmanical caste, and marry their daughters to Bhats.

7. In the Ballavacharya Gossain temples, besides the principal image, which is directly or indirectly a presentment of Krishna, there are subsidiary images not enjoying the same worship or veneration but nevertheless regarded as representations of Krishna. They are almost invariably images of one or other of the descendants of Maha Pirbhuji.

8. Another fact necessary to bear in mind is that the ministrations in the Ballavacharya temples are entirely in the hands of the direct descendants of the founder, and the Gossains of his Kul are the preceptors of the cult taught by him.

9. The temple which forms the subject-matter of dispute in the present case is stated to have been built about the time of the Indian Mutiny, by one Muttuji, a descendent of Ballav and thus a member of his Kul. The worship he set up in this new temple was of the image of Sri Madan Mohanji, which is proved to have been brought from the Tikait defendant's temples at Nathdwara. This was one of the subsidiary images that were worshipped there along with the principal deity.

10. Muttuji remained in possession of the temple built by him and of the worship performed there until his death in 1883. He left a widow, Satbinda Bahuji, and two daughters, Musammat Ganga Beti and Gordhana Beti. After the death of Muttuji, his widow, Satbinda, carried on the worship until 1888 when she died, and the charge of the temple devolved on Ganga and Gordhana. Ganga died in 1896 and Gordhana in 1902. Both Ganga and Gordhana were married, according to the custom of the sect, to Bhat husbands and their sons are accordingly called Bhats. The plaintiffs, Mohan Lalji and Gordhan Lalji, are the sons of Ganga, whilst the defendant, Madhusudan Lala, is the surviving son of Gordhana, and Damodar Lala is her husband.

11. On the death of Gordhana, these two, together with Anrudh Lala, another of her sons, who was alive at the time, appear to have taken possession of the temple. In 1904 a suit was instituted by the defendant Tikait Gordhan Lalji, against Damodar and his two sons to establish his title to the shebaitship, and for possession of the temple. This suit was referred to arbitration, and an award was made in his favour under which