JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the CPC has been preferred by defendants 1 to 3/appellants against the order dated 15.9.2021 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/2016 and 17/2017 by the First Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar whereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.68-A/2017 by the Civil Judge, Class-I, Sardarpur, District Dhar, the matter has been remanded back to it for decision afresh as per directions contained therein.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this appeal are that plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 3 instituted an action before the trial Court for declaration that the temples in dispute are situated over their private suit lands hence are their private temples and suit lands are lands of temples and defendant No.1 is only a Pujari therein, for handing over possession of the suit lands and temples to a committee constituted by plaintiffs for their management, for removal of defendant No.1 as a Pujari and directing him to submit accounts of income from the temples before the Court and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with worship of plaintiffs and their family members of the temple.

3. The plaintiffs submitted inter alia that their private temples Shri Radha Krishna Mandir and Shri Hanuman Mandir are situated at Gram Mangot the same having been constructed over private lands of their ancestor Hanjabai who had renovated the temples, that Hanjabai had only one daughter Laadkunwarbai, who expired in 1961 whose husband was Jaswant Singh, that Laadkunwarbai and Jaswant Singh were issueless hence Jaswant Singh had married Kunwarbai from whom he had six sons, that Laadkunwar had adopted Madhavsingh and plaintiff No.1 is his only son, that Hanjabai died in 1972 and Madhavsingh died in 2000 and that plaintiffs are legal heirs of Hanjabai.

4. The plaintiffs further submitted that Hanjabai had kept Madanlal, father of defendant No.1 as a Pujari of the temples for taking care of the temples as well as the suit lands, that upon death of Madanlal his son defendant No.1 has been managing the temples and carrying out agricultural work over the suit lands, that neither Madanlal nor defendant No.1 ever had any title to the suit lands or the temples, that defendant No.1 has recently started neglecting the management of the temples and agricultural work of the suit lands in view of which he is liable to be removed as a Pujari and that he has refused to relinquish his services as a Pujari despite notice to him in that regard.

5. The defendant No.1 contested the plaintiffs' claim by filing his written statement submitting inter-alia that plaintiffs are not heirs of late Hanjabai, that the temples and their lands are different, that his father and after him he has been taking care of the temples and its lands as of right, that the suit lands are neither owned by plaintiffs or their families nor have they ever been in possession thereof, that in settlement of 1971-1972 his father was recorded over lands of the temples and plaintiffs were not so recorded, that plaintiffs' claim is barred by time and that the same is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as remaining sons and daughters of Jaswant Singh have not been impleaded as parties.

6. The defendants 2, 3 & 4 also filed their written statement contesting the plaintiffs' claim. Defendant No.5 also filed his separate written statement.

7. By judgment and decree dated 18.1.2016 the trial Court held that the suit lands over which temples are constructed are private lands of the temples, that father of defendant No.1 had been appointed as a Pujari by ancestors of plaintiffs for management of the temples, that plaintiffs do not have any right to remove defendant No.1 from management of the temples and its lands and handover the same to a committee constituted by them, that plaintiffs' claim for declaration that temples are their private temples is barred by time whereas the rema