Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1104 (PNJ)

Hari Singh v. Lord Shiva (Idol)

2002-10-23

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present first appeal has been filed by defendant Hari Singh against whom a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) filed by the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was decreed. 2. A suit under Section 92 of the Code was filed by plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, namely, Lord Shiv, Dharam Dutt and Sultan (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) for removal of the present defendant-appellant, namely, Hari Singh (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) from the office of Pujari of the temple known as "Shiv Ka Mandir" in village Surehti Jakhar, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani. The plaintiffs pleaded that earlier one Amara Nand alias Amar Nath was discharging the functions of a Pujari of the temple but after his death on the basis of a will executed by him the present defendant, Hari Singh started managing the affairs. According to the plaintiffs, the temple was established by a Philanthropist and was a public property. The Pujari of the temple was appointed by the village proprietary body from amongst the Chelas of the Pujari who might be working as such. The suit was originally filed against Amara Nand but after his death was continued against his Chela Hari Singh i.e. the present defendant. It was stated that the Pujari had been guilty of mal-administration of the debutter property. According to the plaintiffs, the property of the temple was being wasted and the worshippers were being deprived of their valuable right to worship in the temple. They prayed that the defendant be removed from the office of Pujari and scheme be framed for better management of the temple in question. 3. The aforesaid suit was contested by defendant No. 1 i.e. the present appellant Hari Singh. He denied the factum of temple being a public property. According to him, the aforesaid temple and the land attached thereto was his personal property since it was originally owned by his predecessor Gurus and thereafter it had been inherited by him from the aforesaid Gurus. He also denied the factum of his ever having been appointed as a Pujari of the temple by any governing body of the village. According to him, the aforesaid temple and the land attached thereto was his personal property since it was originally owned by his predecessor Gurus and thereafter it had been inherited by him from the aforesaid Gurus. He also denied the factum of his ever having been appointed as a Pujari of the temple by any governing body of the village. He claimed that he was not answerable to any person to render the accounts of the property as the temple and the land attached thereto was personally owned by him and was his private property. 4. The learned trial Court framed the following issues: "1. Whether the temple in question is debutter property?OPA 2. Whether the temple is a private property of defendant No. 1 ?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring this suit?OPD 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction?OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6. Whether the suit is not valued for the purposes of Court fee?OPD 7. Relief. 5. The learned District Judge (trial Court) after perusal of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the temple, property and the land attached thereto were owned by the temple known as "Shiv Ka Mandir" and further came to the conclusion that since the defendant was setting up a title in the property in dispute and was claiming the aforesaid temple as his private property, therefore, he was liable to be removed. 6. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed. 7. Aggrieved against aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the defendant has come up in the present first appeal. 8. I have heard Shri I.S. Balhara, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri M.L. Sarin, the learned senior counsel for the respondents. The only submission raised by Shri I.S. Balhara, the learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to the property being the temple property was erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. Shri Balhara has submitted that in fact it was clearly proved that the property in question was his private property. Shri Balhara has submitted that in fact it was clearly proved that the property in question was his private property. It has further been submitted by Shri Balhara that in any case there was no justification for removal of the present appellant from the Pujariship of the temple since it was not shown as to how he was mal-administering the affairs of the temple. 9. On the other hand, Shri M.L. Sarin, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the evidence on the record clearly proved that the property in dispute was built by the right holders of the village and was not the private property of any person. Shri Sarin has also submitted that in fact the Pujari was appointed by the proprietary body. Shri Sarin has further maintained that since the Pujari i.e. the present appellant, Hari Singh was setting up an individual title in the property in dispute and was claiming an interest adverse to the temple, therefore, this fact alone was sufficient to remove the aforesaid Pujari and appoint a new one. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and in my considered opinion this appeal has no merit The oral evidence led by the plaintiffs has clearly proved that the temple in dispute was built by the right holders of the village. Besides, in jamabandi Ex. P.7 "Shiv Ka Mandir" is recorded to be the owner of agricultural land attached to it and one Indira Nath, Chela of Mehar Nath is recorded to be its manager. The present appellant Hari Singh is recorded to be a tenant in possession of the land. Similar entries exist in the Khasra Girdawaris Ex. P. 8 from Sawani 1973 to Harhi 1978. The aforesaid evidence conclusively proves that the property in question was owned by the temple and was not the private property of the defendant Hari Singh. 11. It is also apparent from the pleadings of the defendant-appellant that he had set up a title in the property in dispute which was adverse to the temple. In view of this fact alone, the defendant Hari Singh was liable to be removed from the Pujariship of the temple. Thus, I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court and, therefore, finding no merit in the present appeal. I dismiss the same. In view of this fact alone, the defendant Hari Singh was liable to be removed from the Pujariship of the temple. Thus, I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court and, therefore, finding no merit in the present appeal. I dismiss the same. There shall be no order as to costs.