Golvalkar J.- 1. This revision petition is by the party who has been unsuccessful in the proceedings under section 145 of the Cr. P. Code in Cr. Case No. 61 of 1969 of the Court of Sub-divisional Magistrate. Damoh, which have ended in favour of non-applicant No.1. The Sessions Judge, when moved, declined to do so as in his opinion, there was no cause for the same.

2. The facts giving rise to the proceedings under section 145 of the Cr. P. Code are these, and they are substantially accepted excepting only with respect to the status of non-applicant No.1 and his possession on that basis. According to the petitioners non-applicant was a Pujari. while according to him. he is a Sarbarakar of the Deity; that temple in village Patna of Shri Deo Janki Raman was built by Raja Harbansh Rai Bahadur of Bajranggarh, Tahsil and District Damoh in Samvat year 1940; that he dedicated land 120.85 acres in village Patna for the maintenance and Prasad of the Deity installed in the said temple; that Raja Harbansh Rai created a private trust which lasted upon 5-1-1956; that a public trust was created at the instance of the petitioners both of the temple as also property vide Revenue Case No. 341-33/9 of 1953-54 of the Court of Deputy Commissioner Sagar; that the order was passed for registration of the said Trust on 20-2-1956; that petitioner No.2 Diwan Mansingh is the Muhatmim (Managing Trustee) of the temple and the property thereof; that the entire management and care is in the hands of the Muhatmim petitioner No.2. under the M. P. Public Trust Act; that the power of removal of Pujari for misconduct and mismanagement of the temple is exclusively in the hand, of the Muhatmim which he is discharging as required under law; that after the removal of Pujari Koshal Kishore, the present Pujari Baba Devidas, respondent. was appointed as Pujari; that he is wrongly shown in the revenue papers as 'Sarbarakar" but his duties are only that of Pujari ; that he has to perform Puja and distribute Prasad etc. and also to celebrate the festivals and collect rent from sub-lessees ; that on account of misconduct and bad management, the Muhatmim asked the respondent to improve the functioning of the temple and also explain how one of the hands of deity Laxmanji was broken in the temple; that the respondent got annoyed and started putting forward his own untenable exclusive claim to the management of the temple as also property dedicated.

3. The sub-divisional Magistrate, accepting the possession of non-applicant No.1 which possession he was bound to hold whether as a Pujari or as a Sarbarakar, held in his favour in the final order under section 145 of the Cr. P. Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh, has endorsed that order. Hence this petition in this Court.

4. I heard Shri R.N. Rai, counsel for the petitioners and Shri Athia counsel for non-applicant No.1. In my opinion, this petition has to be allowed directing the petitioners, especially petitioner No.2 Diwan Mansingh, to be placed in possession of the land and restraining non-applicant No. 1 from interfering with their or Mansingh's possession over the lands in dispute.

5. Even assuming that non-applicant No. 1 Baba Devidas is a Sarbarakar of the temple in which the Deity is installed for whose benefit the land was dedicated, matters will not improve in his favour. It is admitted that after his predecessor Kaushal Kishore was removed by the trustees of the temple, he was appointed by them under a document dated 12-6-1958. The terms of that document, styled as 'Panch Faisla' under which non-applicant No. 1 was appointed, may be properly reproduced hereunder in order to find out what the position of the said non-applicant is in relation to the temple, the Deity and the property in question :

;g fd efUnj dks feyfdr eudwyk o eSj eudwyk ij oknh ls cpkus dh xjt ls ge yksxks ;kfu iapks us ekeys dks vius gkFk es ;kfu iapdesVh es ys fy;k gS vkSj viuh rjQ ls efUnj Jh nso tkudh je.k th ekStk iVuk rglhy ftyk neksg dk