KAN SINGH, J.—This is an appeal by the defendants directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Partabgarh (Gamp Chittor-garh) and, inter alia, raises the question whether the suit was barred by the provisions of sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (Act No. 42 of 1959), hereinafter to be referred as the "Act"

2. The suit was filed on 27-8-62 by the Panch Maheshwaris of Chittorgarh and it concerns a temple known as Shri Narainjis temple situated at Chittorgarh, It was for an injunction requiring the defendants Jagan Nath and Laxmilal to hand over certain articles of the temple which were in their custody as Pujaris of the aforesaid temple and further refrain from performing the work of Sewa Pooja in the temple.

3 Stated in brief the plaintiffs case was that the temple belonged to the Maheshwari Community and was being managed through their Panchas. The latter had employed the defendants for performing the Sewa Pooja at the temple and for this the plaintiffs relied on certain agreements allegedly executed by the defendants. In view of the services the defendants were to receive the offerings of food-grains (Petia) and whatever would be offered by the worshippers and visiters to the deity.

4. The defendants-appellants contested the suit. They denied that the temple was of the Maheshwari Community or that Maheshwari Panchas had the authority to manage the temple affairs. They took the position that the temple was public temple where any Hindu could as a matter of right, go for Darshan. They proceeded to say that the temple was constructed in the time of Maharana Udai Singh of Mewar and some property had been endowed for its up-keep and the defendants ancestors were appointed as Pujaris and since then the defendants had been acting as hereditary Pujaris and performing the Sewa Pooja* at the temple. The defendants thus denied the authority of the plaintiffs to remove them or to call upon them to deliver the properties of the temple to them or to refrain from performing Sewa Pooja at the temple.

5. On 9-4-65, Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, requested the learned District Judge to add the Commissioner Devasthan as a party to the case. This request of the (learned counsel was not opposed by learned counsel for the defendants and accordingly the Court ordered that the Commissioner Devasthan be added as defendant in the case. Accordingly, the Commissioner Devasthan was added as defendant No. 23 and he also filed the written statement. He too denied the claim of the plaintiffs that it was a private temple belonging to the Maheshwari Community of Chittorgarh. He averred that the temple in question was a public temple and the plaintiffs were not entitled to manage the affairs of the same. According to him, in the past it was the ex-Mewar State who had endowed the property to the temple and it was being treated as a public temple. He further proceeded to say that one Jasraj Bhojak was constituted Pujari and Muafi land was granted to him and it was the duty of Jasraj and his descendants to perfrom the Sewa Pooja at the temple. Apart from this a cash grant of Rs. 21/14/- was being made to the Pujaris Jagannath and Laxmilal for the Sawa Pooja. Further this temple like other public temples of the State was looked after by the Government through the Devasthan Department. He referred to a claim one time made by the Maheshwari Community for the temple and this led to an inquiry in the year 1941. As a result of that inquiry though the temple was allowed to be managed by the Panch Maheshwaris it was held that it was a State temple. The Pujaris were to get the offerings for the services they were to render besides the enjoyment of the Muafi land granted by the State. This decision was given on 17-7-47.

6. Some issues were framed by the learned District Judge after the defendants-appellants had filed their statements and certain additional issues were framed after the Devasthan Commissioner had filed t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document