Pujari of a temple does not acquire right to part away the property of the deity.

S.S. Jha, J.

1. This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

(1) Whether the Pujari has a right to execute a Patta in respect of a land which belongs to the Deity ?

(2) Whether the judgment passed in C.S. No. 6-A/64 could be made a basis for deciding (his present suit? Was it admissible in evidence ?

(3) Is the suit barred by limitation ?

(4) Has the suit been properly valued ?

2. The first question of law relates to the right of Pujari to issue patta in respect of land which belongs of Deity. It is admitted position that the plaintiff claimed the right by virtue of perpetual lease executed by Pujari of temple known as "Murti Ramchandraji". These lands were dedicated to the temple by the erstwhile Rules of the Gwalior State under the provisions of Kawayad Muafidaran Jujbe Arazi. Riyasat Gwalior, Samvat 1991. The maufi was for a Devasthan. The grant was in favour of Deity "Murti Ramchandraji". The capacity of the Pujari was that Manager of the property belonged to Deity. The Daity is minor and Pujari being the Manager is custodian of the properties of the Deity. The Pujari is to look after the management of the properties of deity and the worship of the deity shall be from the usufruct of the property of the deity. The question whether the Pujari can aliente the property, the right of Pujari to execute lease is to be considered since the deity is minor and it cannot be divested of its property on the whims of Pujari/Manager. The deity being minor its property, can be leased out or alienated for the legal necessity of benefit of the estate. Pujari of a temple docs not acquire right to part away the property of the deity. From the averment in the plaint and evidence on record, it is not reflected that patta in favour of the plaintiff was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate of deity. Since the property was not leased out for the benefit of the estate, the question regarding power of pujari in respect of grant of lease is required to be considered to determine the validly of such lease.

3. For determining the validly of lease, the nature of endowment is to be considered. The grant was under the then Regulations of State of Gwalior. Regulations relating to grant in respect of Davasthan and conditions of the grant are referred in para 7 (a) and (b) of the Regulations. Para 7 (b) specifically provides that the grant in is alienable.

4. For the purpose of endowment, the nature of endowment is to be considered. As a general rule of Hindu Law, property given for religious purpose and for maintenance of religious worship and charities connected with it, is in alienable. Under the provisions the power of management vests with the Pujari. The power of Pujari to alienate the debulter property is analogous to that of a Manager for an infant heir. According to law Pujari or Manager has no power to alien tat the debutter property except in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate. That Pujari being Manager is not entitled to sell property or grant a permanent lease of debulter property. Pujari is to maintain the property as Manager of the property and he is not empowered to grant perpetual lease, which is not in the interest of debutter property until and unless the lease should be for the benefit of the estate.

5. In the case of Biram Prakash and others v. Narendra Dass and others reported in AIR 1966 SC 1011 considering the earlier judgment of Privy Council and Judicial Committee, the Lordships held that property devoted to religious propose is as a rule, inalienable, it is competent for a shebait to incur debts and borrow money for the service of the idol and preservation of its property, to the extent to which there is an existing necessity for so doing, his power in that respect being analogous to that possessed by the manager for an infant heir. In testing, therefore, the question of legal necessity for the impugned transaction regard must be paid to the actual pressure on the estate