JUDGMENT D. RAJu, C, J.—The above second appeal has been filed by the party defendants other than the State of Himachal Pradesh and their successor-in-interest against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan dated 2.4.1990 in Civil Appeal No. 91/S/13 of 1985 whereunder the learned First Appellate Judge while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Arki decreed the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 4. 2. The suit in case No. 23/1 of 1983 came to be filed for declaration for the following reliefs : "1. Declaration to the effect that samadhi over which the temple is situated on 1 Biswas and its landed property surrounding to it, and appertinent to that of kutcha house, now demolished comprising Khewat/Khatauni No. 113/164, Khasra No. 54/1 min or 500/54 measuring 2 Biswas total land three biswas situated in chak Hatkot (Kunihar) alongwith other land of 7 Biswas, shown as Devsthan in revenue record of Hatkot (Kunihar) Tehsil Arki District Solan, Himachal Pradesh is a public property and the plaintiff/general public are owners of the same. 2. Since the defendant No. 1 failed to manage and protect the interest of the deity and the defendant No. 2 also failed to perform his duties assigned to him of worshipping etc. ceased to be the worshipper of Pujari and both defendant Nos. 1 and 2 acted adversely to the interest of the deity. 3. That the mutation of the proprietor^ right No. 1095 dated 5.6.1976 attested by the A.C. 2nd Grade, Arki as Land Reforms Officer, in favour of the defendant No. 2 is illegal, wrong, in-operative and ineffective and subsequent revenue record on the basis of the said mutation is also wrong, inoperative and ineffective qua the right/title and interest of the plaintiff/G. Public and the same be quashed. 4. That the suit land along with 7 biswas of devsthan as shown in the revenue record is a public property and the temple is a private trust that of religious nature and a scheme for its proper functioning also be settled. 5. That auction proceedings dated 15.1.1983 of Khasra No. 500/54 or 54/ 1 min measuring 2 biswas Gair Mumkin abadi situated in chak Hatkot (Kunihar) as stated above be set aside in the public interest. 6. 5. That auction proceedings dated 15.1.1983 of Khasra No. 500/54 or 54/ 1 min measuring 2 biswas Gair Mumkin abadi situated in chak Hatkot (Kunihar) as stated above be set aside in the public interest. 6. The defendants be restrained from interfering in the suit land specially defendant No. 2 not to transfer possession of the suit land in any manner to the defendant No. 4 and the sale may not be confirmed in the interest of the public at large and the execution proceeding qua the suit land be stayed and order therein dated 10.1.1984 is not binding on the plaintiffs. 7. The defendants further also be restrained with permanent prohibitory injunction not to interfere in the suit land in any manner whatsoever through themselves, their family members, relations, friends, agents, servants etc." 3. The case of the plaintiffs is that about 300 years prior to the proceedings, the then Ruler Rana Deva of Kunihar was killed in a battle and in his memory, Rana Nand Deva temple was constructed on the land bearing Khasra No. 230 Saabka and Khasra No. 54 Hal situated in Chak Hat-Kot, Kunihar, that the public of Kunihar since then had been worshipping Rana Nand Deva as a deity uptil now and the area of about 12 Biswas was donated to the deity by the Ex-Ruler. It is claimed that in 1948 during the merger of the States, 2 Biswas of land was entered in the name of the State and 10 Biswas of land was left in the name of deity and there was one Katcha Dhara adjoining to the temple over 2 Biswas of land, which was said to have been constructed to provide free drinking water to the public who used to come to worship in the temple. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the 2nd defendant was entrusted with the duties to perform Puja in the temple and lit the lamp daily on the Samadhi and he was wrongly shown as tenant Bila Lagan Bawajah Pooja over 3 Biswas of land in Khasra No. 54 min out of the above 10 Biswas of land said to have been donated to the deity and the remaining 7 Biswas of land was said to have been shown in the name of Dev Sathan. The 2nd defendant was said to have been performing Pooja till 1954 and thereafter started treating the property to be his own and it was alleged that the 2nd defendant sold the material of Katcha Dhara after demolishing the same and the State of Himachal Pradesh illegally granted proprietory rights to defendant No. 2 in the Abadi Deh land vide mutation No. 1095 dated 5.6.1976. While asserting that the said grant is illegal, inoperative and ineffective and that no person can be recorded as tenant in the Abadi Deh nor can be allowed to acquire proprietory rights in respect of the same, it is stated that the 3rd defendant, in execution of the decree obtained by him against Paras Ram, the 2nd defendant has got the property of 2 Biswas of land illegally auctioned leaving only one Biswa of land adjacent to the temple, and the same was opposed to law. On the above claims, the reliefs as noticed supra were prayed for by the plaintiffs. 4. The defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that the present suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata having regard to the objections filed by the plaintiffs having been dismissed in the earlier execution proceedings, that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit and they are estopped from filing the same. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also questioned and the defendants went to the extent of asserting that there is no Nand Deva temple at Kunihar. Reference has also been made to the revenue records which show that Khasra No. 230 min or 54 min comprised of 10 Biswas of land out of which 3 Biswas are recorded at Gair Mumkin Abadi in the possession of Paras Ram - Gair Mauroosi Bila Lagan Bawaja Puja Mandir and that 7 Biswas was recorded as Gair Mumkin Dev Sathan in the possession and use of the public in general and the Forest Department. The 3 Biswas of land was said to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of Paras Ram and inasmuch as he was a landless person, he was granted proprietory rights over 2 Biswas of land out of the said 3 Biswas of land under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, Act No. 8 of 1974 vide mutation effected on 5.6.1976 and inasmuch as pursuant to a decree passed against Paras Ram for the recovery of a sum due under a money decree, the Civil Court auctioned 2 Biswas of the land of Paras Ram on 15.1.1983 after due attachment, the sale effected was valid in law and the purchaser became the lawful owner of the property and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief, as prayed for. The plaintiffs appear to have filed a replication reiterating and re-affirming the stand taken in the plaint. 5. On the above claims and counter claims, the learned trial Judge after formulating the necessary issues tried the suit and on the basis of the materials placed on record dismissed the suit holding that it has not been sufficiently established that 2 Biswas of land in question is a public property and that inasmuch as by the grant made in favour of the said Paras Ram by the State of Himachal Pradesh in 1976, he acquired proprietory rights in the suit land, there was no obligation cast on him to perform any Pooja after 1976 and that he enjoyed the property as an absolute proprietory owner. The learned trial Judge was also of the view that the 2 Biswas of land in question held by Paras Ram was legally auctioned after attachment. As for the maintainability of the suit on the ground of bar of limitation and the principles of res judicata are concerned, the learned trial Judge though held that the suit cannot be held to be time barred, having regard to the fact that the auction proceedings were held on 15.1.1983 and the suit was filed on 2.41983, but the suit was at any rate held to have been barred by the principle of res judicata. The learned trial Judge repelled the plea based on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in the Civil Court to deal with the suit by holding that being a suit for declaration of title the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the same and inasmuch as Paras Ram had acquired proprietory rights in the suit land under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the suit land and as such have no locus standi to file the suit. 6. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs pursued the matter on appeal before the District Court, Solan and learned District Judge in the appeal, as indicated earlier, differed from the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge and while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge decreed the suit holding that the temple of Nand Deva does exist and there is no serious dispute over such existence and the property belonged to the temple and the 2nd defendant Paras Ram, who was only doing Pooja and enjoying the land in lieu thereof cannot be conferred with any proprietory rights in respect of the same and consequently the auction-purchaser also could not derive any valid and lawful title to the 2 Biswas of land in question. Reliance has also been placed by the learned First Appellate Judge on Section 104 of the Act to hold that the land of the temple and deity cannot be lost by the acquisition of any proprietory rights by any one claiming to be in possession of the land. 7. Aggrieved, the party private defendants have filed the above appeal. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants while reiterating the stand of the defendants contended that inasmuch as the rights of ownership have been conferred upon the 2nd defendant as early as in the year 1976 and the same has not been challenged independently either under the provisions of the Act or separately within the stipulated period of limitation therefor, the conferment of rights of ownership upon the 2nd defendant became final and unassailable and no relief, as prayed for in the suit, could be granted at the instance of the plaintiffs. Argued the learned Counsel further that the challenge of the nature has been raised by way of objections in the execution proceedings also and inasmuch as the orders passed therein have been allowed to become final and have not been allowed to challenge the present proceedings, are also barred by the principle of res judicata and as a matter of fact, no separate suit could be filed by the plaintiffs in the teeth of the stipulations contained in Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Adverting to the reasoning of the learned First Appellate Judge based on Section 104 of the Act, it was contended for the appellants that vested rights cannot be divested by any amendment of law simpliciter and that, therefore, the learned First Appellate Judge committed a serious error of law in interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and decreeing the suit instead. 8. Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General has virtually made an attempt to assist the Court by inviting my attention to the relevant provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 to point out that no exception could be taken to the reasoning of the learned First Appellate Judge in that the rights of proprietorship/ownership could not have been conferred under the Act in respect of the land in question having regard to its peculiar character and nature and that in the light of the amendment introduced to the said Act in 1988, the 2nd defendant or for that matter the other defendants could not project any absolute title in respect of the property in them. It was also brought to my notice that when proceedings are pending before the Court or any statutory forum, the Courts or such forum are bound to take into account, in adjudicating the issues before it, the amended law as on date applicable to the case. Mr. It was also brought to my notice that when proceedings are pending before the Court or any statutory forum, the Courts or such forum are bound to take into account, in adjudicating the issues before it, the amended law as on date applicable to the case. Mr. Bhupender Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing vice Counsel for the plaintiffs in traversing the claims on behalf of the appellants and also drawing inspiration from the submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General further contended that the suit claim is not hit by the principle of res judicata inasmuch as the earlier proceedings were initiated by the private parties in their own capacity and inasmuch as the present suit is by the deity though represented by private parties, the principles of res judicata will not be attracted. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that in the earlier execution proceedings while overruling the objection of the objectors there has been no final or conclusive decision of the matter on merits and the decision turned around on technicalities and the capacity of the parties to maintain the same and, therefore, no exception could be taken to the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Judge. Argued the learned Counsel further that the 2nd defendant has committed a gross act of breach of trust in purporting to acquire proprietory rights in the land belonging to the public trust behind the back and to the detriment of the trust and the deity and, therefore, it is permissible for anybody interested in the deity or a worshipper to approach the Civil Court to ensure the restoration of the property of the deity to the public purpose and in such matters involving a deity/idol, which is in the position of a minor, the plea of limitation cannot be successfully projected by the defendants and consequently, no interference whatsoever is called for in the above appeal, 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. Though the learned Counsel appearing on either side have invited my attention to some of the decisions of the Apex Court, as also of this Court, on the general principle relating to the need for setting aside an order passed by a statutory authority be it an illegal order within the time stipulated therefor and in the manner known to law and also the principle governing the rule of constructive res judicata, in my view, it is unnecessary to advert to them in detail or even refer to the principles laid down therein since they are well settled principles of law and also for the reason that there could be no serious controversy whatsoever over the same. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it is only necessary to advert to and adjudicate the extent of their applicability to the case on hand. 10. Though a stand appears to have been taken before the trial Court by even disputing and denying the existence of any temple called Rana Nand Deva temple, it will be not only too late in the light of the day but also impossible for the defendants to stake such a claim in the teeth of not only the existence of such temple for more than three centuries but having regard to the very revenue records made available by both the parties, which disclose the existence of such a temple and the grant of property, which is still maintained as the property of the deity except apparently the 3 Biswas and properly and really speaking the 2 Biswas of land, which is really in dispute in this proceeding. The trial Court also has accepted the position not only about the existence of the temple, but also about the fact that the 2nd defendant Paras Ram used to perform Pooja in the temple of Nand Deva though it is also stated that it is not clear as to who appointed the said Paras Ram to perform Pooja in the temple. It is only in such circumstances even the trial Court came to the ultimate conclusion by placing strong reliance only on the conferment of ownership by the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Act in respect of the 2 Biswas of land to ultimately hold that the plaintiffs have not proved that the suit land measuring 2 Biswas is a public property. As a matter of fact; under Issue No. 3, the trial Court itself has held that Paras Ram was appointed to perform Pooja of the temple and in lieu of the Pooja in the Mandir, he was inducted as a tenant over the suit land as Gair Mauroosi. The learned First Appellate Judge also has, therefore, in my view rightly come to hold that the existence of the temple cannot be disputed as also the further fact that the public used to worship the said deity uptil now. 11. If that be the position with reference to the nature and character of the property, could the 2nd defendant have been lawfully conferred with any rights of proprietorship/ownership of the 2 Biswas of land in question and as to what is the sanctity, legality and validity of the proceedings of the year 1976 wherein such proprietory rights came to be recognised and conferred in the 2nd defendant in respect of the 2 Biswas of land in question. The very revenue records marked in evidence in this case, the credibility and propriety of which is not and cannot also be challenged, they being records maintained in the normal course of official discharge of business, disclose that the property in question is an uncultivable one having regard to the constructions situated thereon. Even that apart, a person who has come to possess the land belonging to the deity under the capacity of being a person appointed by whomsoever to perform Pooja in the temple to enjoy the property in lieu of remuneration for such performance of Pooja, cannot claim any adverse rights to the detriment of the idol. The position of law in this regard does not admit of any doubts or controversy and the rights of the idol to its property cannot be defeated by such person by committing any act of breach of trust or any person claiming through such person by pleading any bar of limitation or any other claim of adverse possession. The position of law in this regard does not admit of any doubts or controversy and the rights of the idol to its property cannot be defeated by such person by committing any act of breach of trust or any person claiming through such person by pleading any bar of limitation or any other claim of adverse possession. In this case, on the factual materials on record not only the land does not appear to be one in respect of which the provisions of the Act could be said to be attracted to claim any acquisition of proprietory rights but even if the land is one, which falls within the four corners of the Act by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 104 to which a reference has been made by the learned First Appellate Judge, the 2nd defendant could not have been conferred with any proprietory rights or ownership rights and in such proceedings even if passed in utter disregard of the prohibition contained in the statute itself would be ab initio void and non est for all purposes and in such case the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the legality and propriety of such grant in a suit for declaration of title of the idol could not be denied or defeated at the instance of at any rate persons like the defendants No. 2 and 3. It has been held by their Lordships of the Apex Court in a decision reported in Bishwanath and another v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji and others, AIR 1967 SC 1044, that a suit filed by an idol for declaration of title and possession of property from a person who is in illegal possession is maintainable at the instance of even a worshipper, even de hors Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and all the more so, when the person, who was holding possession of such property under the guise and garb of being a Shebait/Pujari has acted adversely to the interest of the deity to grab its property. 12. In the light of the above, the plea based on the principle of resjudicata or constructive resjudicata does not merit acceptance in my hand. 12. In the light of the above, the plea based on the principle of resjudicata or constructive resjudicata does not merit acceptance in my hand. The learned First Appellate Judge, in my view, has given cogent and convincing reasons well supported not only in law, but also by the indisputable materials in the shape of necessary facts to justify the conclusion arrived at to ultimately decree the suit. The conclusions arrived at by the learned First Appellate Judge are not shown to suffer any patent error of law or perversity of approach in the matter of appreciation of the material on record. 13. For all the reasons stated above, I find no merit whatsoever in the second appeal and the second appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. Interim stay shall stand vacated. Appeal dismissed.