R.D. Shukla, J. -- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-8-1984 of First Additional District Judge, Raipur, passed in Civil Appeal No. 30-A of 1976, whereby, while setting aside the decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs suit for declaration that Shri Kuleshwar Mahadeo Temple. Nawapara (Rajim) and its property vests in the plaintiff-committee (a Trust) has been decreed.

2. The brief history of the case is that the plaintiff-respondent is a public Trust and it filed a suit through its working Trustee Mehant Laxminarayan Das on 29-1-1975 with the assertion that the plaintiff is a Public Trust registered under the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1956. That, the temple of Kuleshwar Mahadeo is situated in a place where the three rivers, i.e. Mahanadi, Sodhu and Padri, meet together. The temple and its properties are vested in the plaintiff-Committee, vide Judgment passed in First Appeal No. 73 of 1920, on 12-4-1921, by the Court of Judicial Commissioner of Central Provinces.

That, the defendants are the Pujaris of the said temple of Kuleshwar Mahadeo under orders and connivance of the Trust Committee. They were allowed to retain small share in the offerings in lieu of their remuneration.

The defendant No.2 Bhukhan Singh was removed from the post of Pujari with effect from 26-8-1973, because of the misconduct as he had misappropriated a set of silver eyes offered to the deity by a devotee. The defendant No.1 was also suspended with effect from 27-12-1973 as he disobeyed the order of the Committee.

The defendants have forcibly taken possession of the trust property by breaking open the lock on 18-12-1973 and proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were, thereafter, started and the trust properties were attached. It was directed to be kept in the custody of the Additional Tahsildar, Fingeshwar. The defendants have, meanwhile, filed a suit (No. 20 A of 1989) without making the plaintiff party and got a declaration of entitlement of possession in their favour. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was influenced by the said judgment and passed orders in favour of the defendants. Now, therefore, the defendants are trying to take actual physical possession of the trust property from the Additional Tahsildar, Fingeshwar. As such, suit for declaration of right, title and interest was filed by the trust.

3. The defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiffs and pleaded that Shri Kuleshwar Mahadeo Temple was their family property and they have right to perform worship and this right continued in their family for the last many generations.

4. The trial Court has held that the suit had been filed without the consent and connivance of the trust committee and that the working trustees have not if been duly elected by the beneficiaries and the members of the trust. The value of the property is nearly Rs.26,000/-: that the defendants are Pujaris of the said temple; they have got a right to collect the offerings made by the devotees; that the plaintiffs have no right to oust the defendants and they have further no right to disturb the possession of the defendants. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.

5. On appeal having been filed by the plaintiffs, the first appellate Court reversed the findings and held that the suit has been properly instituted; that the suit property of Shri Kuleshwar Mahadeo temple belonged to the plaintiffs; and that, the defendants are Pujaris under the orders and with the permission of the plaintiffs they have a right to collect only small offerings. The appellate Court further declared that the defendants have got a hereditary right of worship. Hence, this appeal.

6. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law-

"Whether the first appellate Court erred in law in negativing the plea of the defendants-appellants that in their capacity as hereditary Pujaris, they had unrestricted right to perform Puja in the suit temple and accept offer