Rajasthan High Court
Giriraj Prasad Sharma vs Moorti Shri Dwarika Dheesh Ji And Ors on 1 May, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 19/1991
1. Giriraj Prasad Sharma (Died during pendency of appeal)
1/1 Smt. Gomti Devi, W/o Late Shri Giriraj Prasad Sharma.
2. Kalyan Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Bhola Nath Brahman, R/o
Sainath Khidkiay, Karoli, District Sawaimadhopur.
----Appellant
Versus
Murti Shri Dwarika Dheesh Ji installed in the temple through
Mohatmin and Shivaits:
1. Shri Girdhar Lal S/o Shri Behari Lal (name deleted).
2. Shri Suwa Lal S/o Shri Ram Lal.
3. Shri Ram Charan S/o Shri Chhotai Lal (Deleted).
4. Shri Kuluwa Ram S/o R. Ghunath Prasad (Name Deleted).
5. Shri Ramji Lal S/o Shri Hira lal Sawarnkar, R/o Karoli, District
Sawaimadhopur.
6. Shri Kirodi Lal S/o Shri Sugan Lal, Sawarnkar, R/o Karoli,
District Sawaimadhopur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitesh Pareek, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Senior Adv. assisted
by Ms. Meenal Bhargava, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date Of Judgment 01/05/2024
This first regular appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41
Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been filed by the defendants-appellants (for
short 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated
01.12.1990 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Karauli (for short 'the trial court') in civil suit No.05/85, by which
the trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents
No.2 (for short 'the plaintiffs') for declaration and possession.
(2 of 7) [CFA-19/1991]
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for
declaration and possession against the defendants in which it was
mentioned that a temple of Murti Shri Dwarkadhish Ji was built by
the Swarnakar and Zadiya Community. They have right to
Mohatmin and Shevait. Members of the Swarnakar and Zadiya
Community constructed two story temple with one Pator annexed
thereto. Two shops were also got constructed for meeting out the
expenses of Bhog-rag of the temple. Prior to the year 1931, Late
Har Prasad grand-father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 was
appointed as Pujari of the said temple. Said two shops, were also
entrusted to Shri Har Prasad to control and manage for meeting
the expenses of Bhog-rag. Pator (house) was also given to him
for residential purpose. After the death of Shri Har Prasad, Shri
Bhola Nath was appointed as Pujari of the said temple. After the
death of Shri Bhola Nath, the defendants were appointed as
Pujaries of the said temple. They began to represent themselves
as the owners of the said temple and misutilized the rent of two
shops. They changed the name of said temple from Dwarkadhish
Ji to Satyanarayana Ji and did not handover vacant possession of
the said temple to the plaintiffs. It was also mentioned in the
plaint that in the year 1931, a survey was conducted by the then
Government of Karauli and Shri Har Prasad, grand-father of the
defendants admitted that the said temple is in the ownership of
Swarnakar and Zadiya Community and he was Pujari of the said
temple.
The defendants filed a written statement before the trial
court and denied the averment made in the plaint and submitted
that Shri Bhola Nath did not give any statement before the
(3 of 7) [CFA-19/1991]
Devasthan Department on 27.07.1944. The said temple is of
Satyanarayana Ji and not of Dwarkadhish Ji. He also stated that
Shri Gopal Swarankar Zadia made a Sankalp of the temple in
favour of one Hanuman Pandit, who was the ancestor of the
defendants. So, the plaintiffs did not have any right against the
defendants.
The trial court on the basis of pleadings, framed the following
issues:-
I. Whether the disputed temple, the dharamshala
annexed thereto as well as two disputed shops
are the properties of Shri Dwarkadheshji and the
same had been got constructed by all Swarnkar
and Zadia's of Karauli for the worship of idols?
(ii) Whether the disputed temple and the other
property was entrusted by Swarankar and Zadiyas
to the ancestors of defendant Nos.1 and 2 with
the condition that so long as they shall worship,
they shall continue to reside alongwith their
families in Dharamshala annexed to the above
temple?
(iii) Whether the ancestral of the defendant Nos.1
and 2 were given two disputed shops simply for
meeting out expenses of Bhog Rag of idol and
other expenses?
proclaimed themselves to be the owner of the
aforementioned property and continued to spend
the income arising therefrom for their personal
(4 of 7) [CFA-19/1991]
uses and stared to cause damage to the property
of the temple by demolishing it?
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the
defendant Nos.1 and 2 removed from the worship
of the above temple and to take possession of the
disputed property?
(vi) Whether the valuation of the disputed
property is not less than 50,000/- and the deficit
court fee has been paid?
(vii) Whether the suit was time barred?
(viii) What relief can be granted to the plaintiff?
Additional issue as issue No.8A was also
framed
(IX) Whether the disputed property is a trust
property, the value of which is more than
Rs.40,000/- and it being not registered under the
Act, suit was not maintainable under Section 29 of
the Rajasthan Public Trust Act?
To prove their case, the plaintiff No.1-Girdhari Lal examined
himself as PW-1, and got examined PW-2 Sukha Lal, PW-3
Shrawan Lal, PW-4 Udai Chand and PW-5 Vinodi Lal & Ramcharan
and exhibited 17 documents.
To prove their case, the defendant No.1-Giriraj Prasad
examined himself as DW-1 and got examined DW2-Shri Kedar Lal
and exhibited documents A1 to A7.
After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment
dated 01.12.1990 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.
(5 of 7) [CFA-19/1991]
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial
court has not appreciated the evidence led by both the parties in
right perspective and wrongly decreed the suit filed by the
plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the
plaintiffs had no ownership regarding temple as well as shops
attached to it. The temple does not belong to Shri Dwarkadhish Ji,
whereas it is a temple of Satyanarayana Ji. Learned counsel for
the defendants further submits that Shri Har Prasad grand-father
of the defendants admitted the ownership of Swarnakar and
Zadiya Community but signature of Shri Har Prasad was not duly
proved and no hand-writing expert report was submitted before
the trial court. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits
that Shri Bhola Nath had not given any statement before the
Devasthan Department on 27.07.1944 and the alleged statement
does not possess his signatures. Learned counsel for the
defendants also submits that during pendency of the appeal, the
defendants filed an application Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Along
with the said application, they filed the old paper of Danpatra of
the said temple wherein Shri Lalaram Jadia had donated the said
property to Pandit Hanuman Prasad. The said document is more
than 100 years old. So, the plaintiffs have no right regarding
disputed temple as well as two shops attached to it. So, the
judgment dated 01.12.1990 passed by the trial court be set-aside.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon
the following judgments:-(1) Shamsher Vs. Rustam reporte
din 1988 AIR (Rajasthan) 188; (2) Profulla Chorone
Requitte and Ors. Vs. Satya Choron Requitte reported in
1979 AIR(SC) 1682; (3) Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang
(6 of 7) [CFA-19/1991]
Bhawan Vs. Nand Lal & Ors. repored in 2017 AIR (SC)
3603.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted
that the temple Shri Dwarkadhish Ji belonged to Swarnakar and
Zadiya Community. Two shops were got constructed for meeting
out the expenses of Bhog-rag of idol. Learned counsel for the
plaintiffs also submits that the defendants changed the name of
temple from Shri Dwarkadhish Ji to Satyanarayana Ji. They also
mis-utilized the rent of the said shops. Learned counsel for the
plaintiffs also submits that in the year 1931, a survey was
conducted by the then Government of Karauli in which grand-
father of the defendants Shri Har Prasad admitted the fact that the
temple belongs to Swarnakar and Zadiya Community and he is a
Pujari over there. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits
that father of the defendants-Shri Bhola Nath also admitted
himself as Pujari of the said temple. Learned counsel for the
plaintiffs further submits that Pujari can not get the ownership of
the temple. So, the trial court has rightly ordered for eviction
against the defendants. So, the present appeal being devoid of
merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiffs.
It is an admitted position that temple of Shri Dwarkadhish Ji
belongs to Swarnakar and Zadiya Community. During the
pendency of the appeal, the defendants filed an application under
Order 41 Rule 27 from which it is clear that document (Daanpatra)
(7 of 7) [CFA-19/1991]
was written by Shri Lalaram Jadia in favour of Pandit Hanuman
Prasad of which there is no relevancy in the suit because grand-
father of the defendants-Shri Har Prasad admitted the fact that in
the year 1931, a survey was conducted by the Government of
Karauli in which he clearly stated that the said temple belongs to
Swarnakar and Zadiya Community and he is Pujari there. Father of
the defendants-Shri Bhola Nath also admitted before the
Devasthan Department that he is a Pujari in the said temple. The
plaintiffs had adduced the evidence before the trial court that the
defendants had misused rent of the temple property. Being
Pujaries, they cannot be considered to be the owner of the said
temple. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not
committed any error in decreeing the suit in favour of the
plaintiffs. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to
be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any also stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/01
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
