The burden of proof and credibility of evidence are crucial in establishing the right to perform 'Puja' in a temple, and perversity of findings can be a substantial question of law.

This second appeal of the defendants arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31-7-2001 passed by the District Judge, Almora, confirming the judgment of the trial Court in Suit NO.4 7 of 1995.

2. The matter relates to a temple and the rights of the plaintiff & the defendants to perform "Puja" in that temple. At Jageshwar in District Almora, there is a temple known as "Jageshwar Temple Dham". It is in fact a cluster or a group of temples where one of the temples is that of "Pushti Devi". The father of the plaintiff was a "Panda" in this temple and used to perform "Puja" and according to the plaintiffs this right to perform puja has subsequently developed on him. According to the plaintiff, the defendant no. 1 and 2 are also Priest / Panda of temple and they are not allowing the plaintiff to perform "Puja". Hence, the cause of action for filing the suit where the plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. The suit of the plaintiff was -decreed by the trial Court and the appeal of the defendants was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. In short the contention of the plaintiff / respondent has been upheld by both the courts below.

3. At this stage the pedigree chart must be given in order to have a proper perspective of who's who in this case. The pedigree chart is as follows:

Manorath Bhatt I Tula Ram Bhatt 2

I

Mahadev Bhatt Tara Dutt Bhatt (since 1957 priest due to paralytic attack of Kishnanand Bhatt and being eldest son I (dies in 1989) 1---. I Bhairab Dutt Bhatt Kaustubanand Bhatt (Defendant No.1) (Defendant No.2)

BishanlDutt Bhatt (Elder Son) 1 Kishanand Bhatt (Only son) (died in 1962) (Paralytic Attack) I

Shiv Dutt Bhatt (He was unmarried and died at the age 22 years)

Nidhi Bhatt 3

I Bala Dutt Bhatt (Plaintiff

Ganesh

Mahesh Dinesh

(Defendant No.3) I'-~--I Harish Ramesh

4. Sri Bhairab Dutt Bhatt, Sri Kaushalanand Bhatt and Sri Dinesh are the defendants / appellants, whereas Sri Bala Dutt Bhatt is the plaintiff. Evidently Sri Bala Dutt Bhatt had filed the suit against his nephews.

5. This second appeal of the defendants/appellants was admitted on the following substantial question of law, framed by the court, at the time of admission. They are: "A. Whether, permanent injunction can be granted to a person who is not at all in the possession over the property in question?

B. Whether, the injunction can be granted on the ground that the right of worship is the right of property?

C. Whether a permanent injunction can be granted in favour of a person on the ground of right of worship in a temple having national importance looking after by the Archaeological Survey of India declared the monument of national importance, in favour of a person against whom criminal proceedings are pending in the courts below?"

6. However, with agreement of both the parties out of the aforesaid substantial questions of law, this court only heard the parties on the first two substantial questions of law. Apart from this during the course of arguments, and after the perusal of records, the court was satisfied that another substantial question of law emerges in the case and that it the following:

"Whether the findings given by the courts below suffers from any perversity?"

7. Therefore, the above substantial question of law will also be treated to have been framed by this Court, and the parties having heard of this substantial question of law as well.

8. The case of the plaintiff is that his father namely Krishnanand Bhatt was the Priest/Panda in the temple, who was having four sons; namely Baladutt (plaintiff), Mahadev Bhatt, Tara Dutt Bhatt and Shiv Dutt. Shiv Dutt died issueless. Mahadev Bhatt was having two sons namely Bhairab Dutt Bhatt/defendant no. 1 and Kastubanand Bhatt / defendant no. 2. Tara Dutt Bhatt was having three sons namely Ganesh Chandra Bhatt, Mahesh Chandra Bhatt and Dinesh Chandra Bhatt. After the death of Mr. Krishnanand Bhatt, the right to worship was inherited to the plaintiff and his three brothers. Aft