Short Note : 1. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed the present suit for cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 15-9-1961 executed by the defendant No.3 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in relation to the suit land and also for possession and in the alternative the claim was also set up for appointment of a receiver, to be appointed, by the Court. 2. The plaintiff grounded his claim on the basis that the defendant No.3 who is admittedly shebait of temple known as Shri Thakur Kunj Bihariji Maharaj located at village Thona, Tahsil Niwari, District Tikamgarh alienated the suit property which was endowment property of the said temple. by executing the gift deed dated 15-9-1961 in favour of defendants Nos. and 2 which was without any authority. According to the plaintiff the act. of the defendant No.3 was wholly contrary of the interest of the idol and he being a successor to the defendant No. 3 appointed as such in pursuance of a will executed by him had interest in the idol. Therefore, he filed the present suit for the protection of that interest. 3. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement have raised a number of pleas and one of them relevant for the purpose of present appeal is that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring the present suit and as such it should be dismissed on that ground. The defendant No.3 in his written statement admitted all the plaint allegations and thus supported the claim of the plaintiff. 4. The trial Court without deciding case on merit dismissed the same on a preliminary issue by holding that the suit was not maintainable. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff by up-holding the judgment of the trial Court The view of both the Courts below was that the plaintiff had no right to file the present-suit challenging the alienation by the defendant No.3 during his life-time as the plaintiff' was entitled to succeed to defendant No.3 after his death in 'pursuance' of the will of the defendant No.3 executed. The plaintiff,. therefor has now come up in the present Second Appeal. Held: Having heard learned counsel of the parties I am of opinion that the appeal has merit and it must be allowed. The plaintiff,. therefor has now come up in the present Second Appeal. Held: Having heard learned counsel of the parties I am of opinion that the appeal has merit and it must be allowed. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is about the maintainability of the present suit at the instance of the plaintiff since both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on that preliminary issue. The Courts below have taken the view that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on the basis of the will executed in his favour by shebait of the temple, the defendant No.3 appointing him as his successor but the will would come into operation only after the death of defendant No.3. That being so, the plaintiff had no right to file the present suit challenging the alienation of the suit and in favour of defendants Nos.1 and 2 by the defendant No.3. The plaintiff was also non. suited on the ground that he did not bring the suit on behalf of the idol and as such since the present suit does not purport to have been filed to protect the interest of the idol it was not maintainable. Lastly, it was also said that the defendant No.3 who is the shebait of the temple has not filed the present suit who could do so for challenging the gift deed executed by him. In my opinion, the whole approach of the Courts below was incorrect. The defendant No.3 in his written statement admitted all the plaint allegations. He also admitted that the execution of the gift deed by him in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was wholly unauthorised. In the circumstances he ought to, have been transposed in the array of plaintiffs as plaintiff No.2 by the trial Court itself exercising the suo motu power. In the case of the present. type when the property of an idol is being gifted away by a shebait, in my view the case was most appropriate for the exercise of that power. [See, R.S. Maddanappa (deceased) after him by his legal representatives v. Chandramma and another ( AIR 1965 SC 1812 ) at page 1816]. 5. Even otherwise as the assertions in the plaint go the plaintiff has described himself not only as a Chela but also a worshipper. [See, R.S. Maddanappa (deceased) after him by his legal representatives v. Chandramma and another ( AIR 1965 SC 1812 ) at page 1816]. 5. Even otherwise as the assertions in the plaint go the plaintiff has described himself not only as a Chela but also a worshipper. That being so, it could not be said that he had no interest in the idol. He being a worshipper, which fact has not been denied in the written statement by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the suit could still be held maintainable on that basis as it is difficult to comprehend that the shebait who transfer the property can only bring a suit for recovery. I am of opinion that there is no justification for taking such pragmatic view of law in such cases. In this connection I may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Bishwanath and another v. Shri Thakur Radha Ballabhji and others ( AIR 1967 SC 1044 ). 6. Applying the rule laid down in the above mentioned decision which is wholly applicable to the facts of the present case, the suit was clearly maintainable on behalf of a worshipper. I want to make it clear that with regard to his assertion about being Chela and a future shebait on the basis of a will executed by the defendant No.3, I express no opinion at this stage. In the circumstances, having held the suit being maintainable, the suit must go back for a full trial before the trial Court. Appeal allowed. Case remanded.