Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.8.87 passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Chapra in Title appeal no. 94/85/52/86, affirming the judgment of the trial court dated 6.9.85 rendered in Title suit no. 115/82. Plaintiffs of that suit are appellants here. 2. The plaintiffs-appellants had filed the aforesaid suit seeking declaration that they are Motwalies of the suit lands and plaintiff no. 1 who was deity called "Shri Ram Janki" and others. They had also sought for recovery of possession of the suit property belonging to this deity from defendant-respondents of this appeal. 3. The plaintiffs-appellants had filed the suit with main contention to the effect that there was one Hanuman Prasad Khajanchi who was owner of the suit land over which there was a building in which Hanuman Prasad Khajanchi was living. After some time, Hanuman Prasad Khajanchi constructed various residential buildings over the suit property as described in Schedule of the plaint and installed deity of Shri Ram Janki and other deities. Hanuman Pd. Khajanchi was succeeded by his widow who died issueless. Then the suit property was inherited by Ganesh Prasad and Harihar Prasad as aganates of Hanuman Pd. Khajanchi. These two persons executed deed of waqf (Tamliknama) by a registered deed dated 30.4.1904 and appointed 5 Mutwalies to govern and manage the property of deities. In the year 1927, out of 5 Mutwalis only one Mutwali namely, Guljarilal survived and others died. There was a proceeding under section 144 Cr. PC. in between Guljarilal and others and one Dinbandhu who was acting as Pujari was removed and Chandradev Mishra was appointed as Pujari. However, during the pendency of this proceeding, Guljarilal expressed his inability to manage the suit property and surrendered his right to the original owners, Ganesh Pd. and Harihar Pd. Then Ganesh Pd. and Harihar Pd. executed another deed in the year 1927 and appointed 5 Mutwalies. However, all 4 Motawalies died before 1952 and only Mahabir Pd. remained alive. This Mahabir Pd. appointed other mutavalies including one Jamuna Prasad in the year 1952. However, Chandradev Mishra. Pujari started unnecessarily interferring with the affairs of the deity and he also got his name mutated in the municipal record as Motavali. He also started realizing rent from the tenants on the shops of the temple land. remained alive. This Mahabir Pd. appointed other mutavalies including one Jamuna Prasad in the year 1952. However, Chandradev Mishra. Pujari started unnecessarily interferring with the affairs of the deity and he also got his name mutated in the municipal record as Motavali. He also started realizing rent from the tenants on the shops of the temple land. Then Chandradev Mishra was asked to vacate the suit premises and he was also asked to desist from intermeddling with the affairs of the temple. He was further asked to vacate the premises in his occupation. Chandradev Mishra promised to vacate the suit premises, but he failed to do so and he died on 2.8.81. Thereafter his heirs defendants no. 1 and 2 were allowed to remain in temple room for some time, but when they also failed to vacate, one Jaleshwar Choube was appointed as Pujari. When this Jaleshwar Choubeywent to take the possession of the temple, he was resisted by defendants no. 1 and 2 and other defendant-respondents and then the suit was filed. 4. Defendant-respondents had set up the pleas that Chandradev Mishra was Motavali appointed by Hanuman Pd. Khajanchi himself and plaintiff-appellants were not rightful Motavalies and, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief and defendant-respondents had been in possession of the suit lands for the last several years. 5. In the second appeal, it was submitted by the appellants lawyer that the appellate court in its judgment held that Chandradev Mishra was simple Pujari of the deities and although he was working as defacto Motavali, he was, for all practicable purposes, holding not as motavali of the deities. The trial court had also held on evidence on the record that Chandradeo Mishra was not Motavali and in this view of the matter, appellate court should have held that appellants were Motavalies. Further, it was submitted by the appellants lawyer that the trial court had non-suited the plaintiff-appellants on the premises that they had failed to establish by any evidence that Ganesh Pd. and Harihar Pd. were aganates of Hanuman Pd. Khajanchi. Execution of any deed of 1883 or any subsequent deed removing earlier Motavali and appointing a fresh motavali which could prove that Ganesh Pd. and Harihar Pd. were aganates of Hanuman Pd. Khajanchi, was not filed in the trial court and, therefore, this had inspired the trial court to reject the claim of Harihar Pd. Khajanchi. Execution of any deed of 1883 or any subsequent deed removing earlier Motavali and appointing a fresh motavali which could prove that Ganesh Pd. and Harihar Pd. were aganates of Hanuman Pd. Khajanchi, was not filed in the trial court and, therefore, this had inspired the trial court to reject the claim of Harihar Pd. and Ganesh Pd. that they were aganates of Hanuman Pd. Khajanchi. But in the appellate court certified copy of the deed of 1883 was admitted as additional evidence and, therefore, there could be no denial of the fact that Harihar Pd. and Ganesh Pd. were aganates of Hanuman Pd. Kajanchi. However, question whether Ganesh Pd. and Harihar Pd. were aganates of Hanuman Pd. Kajanchi become irrelevant in view of the pleadings of the plaintiff-appellants themselves. Admittedly, Ganesh Pd. and Harihar Pd. had executed a deed of Tamliknama in the year 1904 where by they had divested themselves of all rights of the suit property and they had entrusted the management of the suit property into the hands of Motavalis. Admittedly, it was a deed of endowment and the management of the deity-property was left in to the hands of Motavalis. It was further stipulated in the original endowment deed that if any of the motavalies died, the surviving motavalies had the right to appoint a fresh team of motavalis. Admittedly Gulzarilal continued till 1927 and the fact that he had surrendered his right was not established by any material on the record, but the trial court had dealt with, in detail, the evidence regarding oral surrender of right by Gulzarilal and it came to the conclusion that Gulzarilal never surrendered his right of motavali, and in this view of the matter, appointment of fresh motavali by Ganesh Pd. and Harihar Pd. was illegal and irregular. Then subsequent Motavali appointed in the year 1952 was also illegal. This is so because Motavalies appointed in the year 1927 by Harihar Pd. and Ganesh Pd. were themselves not legal motavalis, Gulzarilal rightfuly appointed motavali remaining alive, who had the sole authority to appoint a fresh motavali. In that view of the matter, plaintiff-appellants who were claiming the suit property on the basis of the illegal appointment had no right either to bring the suit or to seek any declaration that they were legally appointed motavalies. were themselves not legal motavalis, Gulzarilal rightfuly appointed motavali remaining alive, who had the sole authority to appoint a fresh motavali. In that view of the matter, plaintiff-appellants who were claiming the suit property on the basis of the illegal appointment had no right either to bring the suit or to seek any declaration that they were legally appointed motavalies. Admittedly, the suit lands were in the hands of defendant-respondents and there is no claim by the plaintiff-appellants that they were managing the suit property or that they were ever in possession of the management of the deities or its property. Whether Chandradev Mishra was Pujari or motavali, was, therefore, an irrelevant question. It also transpires from the evidence on record that Gulzarilal in the year 1957 appointed certain Panches to look after the affairs of the deities. Since Gulzarilal was admittedly legal motavali and only surviving member of the team of Motavalies, the panches appointed by him were legally appointed panches holding legal authority to manage the suit-property. 6. The circumstances of the case, therefore, clearly indicate that the plaintiff-appellants had neither any right to sue nor they had any authority to seek declaration sought for, Plaintiff-appellants could not succeed on the merit or demerit of the case of the defendant-respondents. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that both the courts below rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants. This appeal, accordingly, fails and it is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.