JUDGMENT Mathur, J. - This is an appeal from a decree and judgment of the senior Civil Judge Pauri, district Garhwal, dated the 4th of March, 19.1(sic). The Plaintiff Appellants, along with several others, brought a representative suit against the Respondent. Pt. Basudeo Namburi, Rawa of Temple Shri Badrinath, seeking the following reliefs (as subsequently amended): (1) That a declaration be granted that the Plaintiffs were the Paodas of Badrinath temple and had a right to go into the precincts of the temple at all times and on all occasions without restriction, when the temple was open, with the object of having darshan of the deity. (2) That a declaration be granted that the Plaintiffs had a right to go freely into the precincts of the temple with their Jajmans or clients, whenever it was open, for assisting them in the matter of darshan and worship. (3) That a further declaration be granted that the Plaintiffs had a light to accept within the precincts of the temple whatever was put into their bands as a gift to them by their clients at the time of darshan, worship etc. (4) That a perpetual injunction be issued to the Defendant restraining him from interfering with the immemorial rights of the Plaintiffs, 2. The suit started in the month of April 1934, and was dismissed on a preliminary pout on the 18th day of September, 1934, by the then Senior Civil Judge who hold that it was barred by the rule of res judicata, as on a former occasion a suit, brought by live of the Daoprayagi Pandas, was finally dismissed by the Commissioner of Kumaun acting as a High Court in the year 1896. The Plaintiffs preferred a First Appeal, No 77 of 1993, against this decision to this Court, and a Bench of this Court, to which one of us was party, re versed the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge holding that the claim was not barred by res judicata, and remitted the case for trial of the other issues arising in the case (vide Narhari v. Basudeo,1988 A.W.R.(HC)500: A.L.J. 680, While the case was still pending in the lower Court, the United Provinces Shri Badrinath Temple Act of l939 (Act XVI of 1939) wae brought on the Statute book, and a Special Officer, representing the Comittee of Management to be constituted under the Act,was appointed. The said Officer was impleaded as a Defendant on the 26th of August, 1910, and he filed a written statement on the 26th October, 1940. 3. The Plaintiff's alleged that they were a body of Brahman priests residing at Deoprayag and Badrinath and had the exclusive right by immemorial custom to act as Pandas and "Tiath(sic) Purohits" and approved guide of the pilgrims to Badrinath and, as such, had a right to conduct the pilgrims into the precincts of the temple and to assist them in having the darshan of the various deities and in making their offerings to the said deities; that the Rawal, who was in charge of the temple as Pujari and conducted the worship of God Badrinath under a scheme sanctioned by the Commissioner of Kuaunrun(sic) in the year 1899, wrongfully and without any just cause or excuse, in the month of August 1933,obstructed and threatened to obstruct the Plaintiffs from entering the precincts of the temple in company with their Jajmans and illegally and unjustifiably restrained them from assisting the pilgrims in the usual way at the time of darshan and worship of the deities. It was further mentioned that this conduct of the Defendant hindered the Plaintiffs in the exercise of their right of entry into the temple and also tended to reduce the earnings of the Plaintiffs from their jajmans by way of Suphal Dan and remuneration for their services. It was by a subsequent application dated the 5th of June. 1934, that an amendment of the plaint was sought for and obtained, and it Was then that the right of taking within the precincts of the temple whatever was put into the hands of the Plaintiffs as a gift by their Jajmans or clients was specifically claimed. 4. The Rawal, Pandit Basudeo Namburi, in his written statement admitted that the Plaintiffs, as Hindus, in their individual capacity, bad a right to enter Badrinath temple for the purpose of worship. But he averred that the Plaintiffs had no right whatever to accept any gifts or offerings from the pilgrims within the Badrinath temple or its compound, at the time of darshan or worship of Badrinath and other deities. He also pleaded that the suit was barred by res judicata and by the law of limitation. 5. But he averred that the Plaintiffs had no right whatever to accept any gifts or offerings from the pilgrims within the Badrinath temple or its compound, at the time of darshan or worship of Badrinath and other deities. He also pleaded that the suit was barred by res judicata and by the law of limitation. 5. The Special Officer in bis written statement pleaded that u/s 2 of the Shri Badrinath Temple Act all customs or usages were made void and inoperative, that any gift made to anybody within the precincts of the temple was declared to be an endowment by Section 3, Clause (b) of the said Act, and that, by Sections 23 and 25 of the said Act, the Committee was empowered to provide facilities for the performance of worship by the pilgrims, to do such things as may be conducive to the convenience of the pilgrims, and to make bye-laws for the maintenance of order inside the temple and for regulating the entry of persons therein. It was denied that the Plaintiffs had any right to accompany their Jajmans inside the temple or to receive any gifts from the pilgrims within the precincts of the temple. 6. A number of issues were framed, but only the following are those with which the appeal is mainly concerned: (1) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to accompany their clients pilgrims into and within the Badrinath temple to assist them in the matter of darshan, worship and offerings to Badrinath and other deities therein ? (2) Are the Plaintiffs entitled to receive presents of gifts from their clients pilgrims while within the Badrinath temple ? (3) Is the Defendant entitled to regulate the entry of pilgrims and their Pandas into the temple ? If so, to what extent ? 7. The learned Senior Civil Judge held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to a declaration that they were Pandas of Badrinath temple and had the right to go into the precincts of the temple at all times and on all occasions without restric tion when the temple was open with the object of obtaining darshan of the deity, and also that they were not entitled to a declaration that they had a right freely to go into the temple with their Jajmans or clients, whenever it was open, for assisting their clients in the matter of darshan and worship. The prayer for perpetual injunction was also refused. The suit was, however, decreed for a declaration that the Plaintiffs had a right to accept within the precincts of the temple, whatever was put into their hands as gifts (dan dakshina or sankalap) by the pilgrims for the benefit of the Plaintiffs and not the temple, and to retain such gifts for their personal benefit. The right was, however, hedged in with this condition that it would be subject to the adminsitrative control of the Temple Committee. 8. As already stated, the Plaintiffs have filed an appeal against the judgment of the learnned Senior Civil Judge in so far as it dismissed a part of their claim. The Defendants have filed cross-objections with regard to that part of the claim which has been decreed. 9. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. 1 think that this appeal has got no force, and it must be dismissed. There can be no doubt that the Plaintiffs as Hindus were entitled to enter Badrinath temple for purposes of darshan and worship. This was admitted by the Rawal Defendant in his written statement filed on the 27th of August, 1934. They further claimed to have an absolute right to enter the temple in company with their Jajmans, which is denied by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs based this right oh an immemorial usage. There cannot be the least doubt that the burden of proving the immemorial usage alleged by the Plaintiffs lay on them. Before examining the evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs, it would be necessary to consider certain undisputed facts which form the background of the case. 10. In paragraph 5 of the plaint the Plaintiffs alleged that the worship and affairs of the public temple were administered under a scheme sanctioned by the Commissioner of Kummaon in the year 1899, and this fact was admitted in the written statement. But as no such scheme of 1899 was filed by any of the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge took the view that it was an obvious mistake for the scheme of 1892, a copy of which is on the record. In the absence of any copy of the scheme of 1899 or of any proof that it was not much the same as that of 1892, the matter does not affect the result. In the absence of any copy of the scheme of 1899 or of any proof that it was not much the same as that of 1892, the matter does not affect the result. From the papers on the record, it is however clear that in the year 1892 rules for the regulation of pilgrims to the Badrinath temple were formulated which were sanctioned by the Commissioner of Kumaun Division on the 4th of July, 1892. Those rules prohibited the Pandas from going inside the temple along with the pilgrims. In the following year, that is 1893, the Manager complained against the Pandas to the Maharaja of Tehri and the Commissioner of Kumaun Division, and the Commissioner passed an order that the Manager should not allow the Pandas to enter the temple if he thought that the complaint against the Deoprayagi Pandas was genuine and that police would help in the matter. In 1894 the Deoprayagi Pandas, or some of them, again moved the Commissioner of Kumaun Division asking permission to go inside the temple with their Jajmans (vide Exhibit D4). On the 28th of October, 1894, Colonel Grigg passed an order in the following terms: We had better send a copy at this to the Manager for early report. It would appear that the Pandas' duty consists in escoring the pilgrims to the temple precincts and no further. Their entering the temple can only be permitted when they do so as pilgrims. 11. This was followed by a suit, No. 345 of 1895, by five of the Deoprayagi Pandas. The case went up to the Commissioner acting as the High Court of Kumaun and the suit was dismissed, it having been held that the Plaintiffs bad no right to enter the precincts of the temple with their Jajmans. It has got a quat probative force u/s 13 of the Indian Evidence Act There are also certain papers on the record Exhibits 15 to 24) which go to show that in certain instances permission was sought by some of the Pandas and was refused. It has got a quat probative force u/s 13 of the Indian Evidence Act There are also certain papers on the record Exhibits 15 to 24) which go to show that in certain instances permission was sought by some of the Pandas and was refused. It will be obvious from all this that, for more than half a century, while the Pandas have, on the one hand, been trying to establish their right of entry into the temple along with their Jajmans, the management have, on the other hand, always denied their right and exercised their power of granting or refusing permission as they thought proper. The Plaintiffs have produced more than 30 witnesses to show that, when the latter visited Shri Badrinath temple, they were accompanied by their Pandas, and some of them gave gifts to the latter (Pandas) within the precincts of the temple. Some of these witnesses are certainly very respectable and their veracity cannot be doubted. But even their evidence does not establish that there has been an immemorial usage by which the Plaintiffs could go into the temple with their Jajmans, openly and as of right Several thousands of pilgrims visit the temple every year and, if 30 or 40 of them, during the course of 25 years or so, could state that l:bey were accompanied by their Pandas and gave them gifts with the precincts of the temple, that would fall far short of establishing an usage. It must also be borne in mind that the Pandas do exert a certain amount of influence as spiritual guides on their Jajmans, and in these circumstances the statements of the majority of the witnesses produced have to be accepted with a certain amount of caution Most of these witnesses only stated that no permission of the Rawal was obtained within their knowledg. This does not go very far in the face of the documentary evidence produced by the Defendants. The learned Senior Civil Judge found on the evidence that was produced before him that after 1903, and up to 1920 the practice prevailing at Badrinath temple was not to allow any Panda, whoever he be, to go inside the temple with the pilgrims, but is a matter of concession and in certain circumstances the Rawal or his Manager gave such permission to the Pandas. I see no reason to differ from this finding of the lower Court. I think, even if no other evidence to the contrary was available, that would be sufficient to hold that the usage as alleged was not immemorial, In the years 1923 and 1925 some Deoprayagi Pandas, who had gone inside the temple and accepted some gifts, had to tender apologies to the Rawal on his taking an exception to their conduct. Exhibit 23 shows that in the year 1923 the Rawal went so far as to exclude these Deoprayagi Pandas from going inside the temple even for darshan. I have no doubt in my mind that the Plaintiffs miserably failed to prove that there was any immemorial usage in existence by which they were entitled to accompany their Jajmans as of right inside the precincts of the temple. 12. After the passing of the United Provices Shri Badrinath Temple Act of 1939 (Act XVI of 1939), it has to be seen whether the Committee or the Special Officer could place any restriction on the entry of the Pandas into the temple. Section 2 of the said Act lays down that it shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in...... any decree, custom or usage. It will be clear from this that, if any usage existed, it could be superseded by the provisions of this Act. It has, however been contended on behalf of the Appellants that there is no provision in the Act giving any power to the Committee or to the Special Officer prohibiting the Plaintiffs from entering the temple along with their Jajmans. Section 23, Clause (2) lays down: Subject to the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder, it shall be the duty of the Cummittee to provide facilities for the proper performance of worship by the pilgrims. 13. It has been argued that the duty of the Committee is confined to providing facilities for the proper performance of worship by the pilgrims, and that it is no part of their duty to prohibit the entry of the Pandas along with their Jajmans if the latter think it necessary for the proper performance of worship. Reference has been made to the statements of the witnesses, some of whom have deposed that in their opinion it was necessary for the peformance of worship that the Panda should accompany them. Reference has been made to the statements of the witnesses, some of whom have deposed that in their opinion it was necessary for the peformance of worship that the Panda should accompany them. It is in evidence that the management has made provision for the proper performance of worship and darshan by appointing certain persons who constantly remain in attendance to do the needful. But it is argued that, if the pilgrims think that their worship would not be complete unless they are accompanied by their Panda, that should be given effect to. As already observed, the evidence is too meagre to hold that this is the common belief of all the innumerable pilgrims who visit Badrinath, and it would not be possible to hold on the sentiments of a few persons that the worship of Badrinath without being accompanied by a Panda would not be complete. 14. Section 25, Clause (i), Sub-clause (m) of the same Act lays down: The Committee may make by laws not inconsistent with this Act or the rules made thereunder or any other law for the maintenance of order inside the Temple and regulating the entry of persons therein. 15. It has been contended on behalf of the Plaintiffs that regulating the entry of persons would not entitle the Committee to forbid the Pandas to enter the temple along with their Jajmans absolutely. Reliance is placed on the two English Rulings printed in Appeal Cases 1896, at Pages 88 and 348. It was held in those cases that a statutory power conferring a right to make bye-laws for regulating or governing a trade does not authorize the authority concerned to prohibit the carrying on of that trade. It may, however, be pointed out that prohibiting a trade is something very different from prohibiting the entry of a certain class of persons into a temple. The prohibition of a trade would be against public policy, while it may be not only lawful but also necessary to prohibit the entry of certain persons when, in the opinion of the authority making the rules, there was danger of any disorder or brench of the peace. I have no hesitation in holding that the Committee wasauthorised to make rules prohibiting the entry of the Plaintiffs. I have no hesitation in holding that the Committee wasauthorised to make rules prohibiting the entry of the Plaintiffs. But it appears that certain rules were framed on the 27th of March, 1942, which are published in the United Provinces Gazette dated the 11th of April, 1942, which contemplate the admission of Pandas with their Jajmans. Rule 4 says that the Secretary shall regulate the admission of Pandas with their Jajmans in accordance with the regulations framed or direction given by the Committee from time to time. These rules were framed long after the suit was filed, and after the framing of these rules the Plaintiffs can have no cause of complaint on that head. They are, however, not entitled to get a declaration that they have a right to enter the precincts of the temple along with their Jajmans as a matter of right. The finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge on this issue appears to be quite correct. It necessarly follows from this that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to the perpetual injunction sought for and it was rightly refused. 16. This brings us to the cross-objections which challenge that part of the decree by which the Plaintiffs were given a right to accept within the precincts of the temple whatever was put into their hands as gifts. It has been remarked in the grounds of cross-objections that the findings of the learned Senior Civil Judge were self-contradictory, and this appears to be quite justified . While refusing a declaration to the Plaintiffs that they have a right to enter the temple along with their Jajmans, the learned Senior Civil Judge has thought it fit to give them a declaration that they were entitled to receive within the orecincts of the temple whatever was put into their hands. The following extracts from the judgment would show that the learned Senior Civil Judge has not been very consistent in dealing with this aspect of the case. At one place he has observed: The Plaintiffs, as Deoprayagi Pandas, have no civil right to receive gifts within the temple, and cannot accordingly seek for a declaratory decree in respect of a non-existent right against the Defendants. 17. At one place he has observed: The Plaintiffs, as Deoprayagi Pandas, have no civil right to receive gifts within the temple, and cannot accordingly seek for a declaratory decree in respect of a non-existent right against the Defendants. 17. Then later on he proceeds to state: The position then is merely that there is no inherent right of any Panda or Brahman, even if allowed inside the temple, to receive the gifts, but, in case he is fortunate enough to receive any, I do not see how, under the existing provisions of the Shri Badrinath Temple Act, he can be prevented from accepting the gift itself, when the doner wants to hand over the gift to him. 18. In the end the learned Senior Civil Judge gave the Plaintiffs a declaration as already stated. 19. The Defendants rely on the definition of the word "endowment" as given in Section 3, Clause (b) of the Act, by which gifts of property made to any one within the precincts of the temple are brought within the meaning of the word "endowment " It is argued on behalf of the Defendants that any gift made to any person would be an endowment and he would not be entitled to appropriate it to his benefit. On the other hard, on behalf of the Plaintiffs it is urged that Section 4 lays down what property shall vest in the deity of Shri Badrinath, and the gifts made within the precincts of the temple are not included in that category. On giving the matter my best consideration, I think that Section 4 has got no concern with Section 3, Clause (b). The former only vests in the deity of Shri Badrinath the property that would not under the ordinary course belong to the deity. By that section the endowments which were in the name of other person, but for the benefit of the temple, or which were connected with the temple being lor the convenience, comfort or benefit of the pilgrims, were vested in the deity. In my opinion, u/s 3 Clause (b), any gift made to any person within the precincts of the temple would be an endowment and that person. could not lay any claim to it. 20. In my opinion, u/s 3 Clause (b), any gift made to any person within the precincts of the temple would be an endowment and that person. could not lay any claim to it. 20. u/s 25, Clause (m), it seems obvious that, if the Committee thought that order could not be properly maintained if the Pandas were allowed to haggle for and to receive gifts inside the temple at the very time when gifts were made to the deity, they could certainly make an order prohibiting the Pandas from receiving gifts inside the temple. It appears that bye-laws have been made u/s 25, Clause (1), Sub-clause (n) for the performance of duties provided in Section 23. One of the duties provided in Section 23 is to provide facilities for the proper performance of worship by the pilgrims. In these rules it has been provided by Rule 8 that no person other that those whose right to receive gifts has been specifically recognised by the Committee shall receive gifts in any form within the precincts of the temple. The permanent employees of the temple shall not receive or solicit for any remuneration reward or dakshina in any form from pilgrims. 21. In my view, the making of this rule was within the competence of the Committee and it is probably a re-assertion of what the management has all along bee a maintaining and trying to enforce. On behalf of the Plaintiffs reliance has been a placed on certain text books in order to show that the pilgrimage to Badrinath could not be complete unless a gift was made to the Panda within the precincts of the temple, In the first place, there is nothing on the record to show if these books can be considered an authority on the subject or are generally so recognized. In the next place, they only recommend that it would be meritorious to give gifts to the Brahrmans and Pandas in connection with the pilgrimage to badrinath and do not make it obligatory. I think it would be a misreading of these books to hold that the gift has to be made with in the precints of the temple or in close proximity of the idol. Any gift made at Badrinath would be equally efficacious. I think it would be a misreading of these books to hold that the gift has to be made with in the precints of the temple or in close proximity of the idol. Any gift made at Badrinath would be equally efficacious. la these circumstances, the Plaintiffs could not be held entitled to get a declaration given to them by the learned Senior Civil Judge. The Civil Judge has himself realised that the Committee had such power and has given a declaration subject 10 the administrative control of the Temple Committee in so far as the maintenance of order and decency and the enforcement of proper behaviour within the temple were concerned. He had also laid down that the exercise of this right will further be restricted by any special or general conditions imposed by the Committee of Management under any bye-law framed by them in accordance with the provisions of Shri Badrinath Temple Act or any other special law that may hereafter be applicable to the temple. 'As a matter of fact, the declaration gives by the learned Senior Civil Judge has been made nugatory by all these limitation put upon it. I am thus of opinion that this cross-objection must succeed and this part of the decree must set aside. The result is that the Plaintiffs' appeal should, in my opinion fail and be dismissed with costs. The cross-objection should prevail and be allowed with costs. The Plaintiffs' suit should stand dismissed with costs through out. Verma, C.J. 22. I agree and do not consider it necessary to add anything beyond saying that I should like to place on record my sense of appreciation of the great pains which the learned Judge of the Court below appears to have taken in this case. The fact that we have not found it possible to agree with certain part of bis judgment does not detract from the credit to which be is entitled for the care and thoroughness with which he has tried the case. 23. The appeal is dismissed with costs and the cross-objection are allowed with costs. The result is that the suit stands dismissed with costs throughout.