Judgment Bhagwati Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal arises out of the decision of the Addl.District Judge.Bikaner in a suit filed by Swami Someshwaranand as Chairman of Sri Dhuninath Guruji’s Public Trust, Bikaner. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction and recovery of amounts. Judgment Bhagwati Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal arises out of the decision of the Addl.District Judge.Bikaner in a suit filed by Swami Someshwaranand as Chairman of Sri Dhuninath Guruji’s Public Trust, Bikaner. The suit was filed for declaration and injunction and recovery of amounts. Following issues were framed: ß1- D;k chdkusj fLFkr iap eafnj eqrnkfo;k dks egkjktk lwjr flag th chdkusj ujsÓk us cuok;k Fkk\ 2- D;k iap eafnj chdkusj jktdh; eafnj gS\ 3- D;k ;g iap eafnj chdkusj jkT; dh O;oLFkk vkSj izcaèk esa Fkk\ 4- D;k bl eafnj dk dqy [kpkZ chdkusj jkT; ljdkj pykrh Fkh\ 5- D;k ;g reke tk;nkn ftlds iV~Vs iap eafnj èkwuh ukFk th ÅQZ èkuh ukFk th ds uke ls gSa\ chdkusj jkT; dh vpy lEink Fkh vkSj chdkusj jkT; ljdkj esa fufgr Fkh\ 6- D;k Jh èkuhukFk fxjh th lkoZtfud izU;kl xSj dkuwuh gksus ls ukfdl] izHkkoghu gS\ 7- D;k vfLlVsaV dehÓuj nsoLFkku tksèkiqj dks dUMhÓkuy jftLVªsÓku djus dk vfèkdkj Fkk\ 8- D;k dehÓuj nsoLFkku dk gqDe rkjh[k 17-07-1979 dh ;g tkap dh tkos fd iap eafnj chdkusj jktdh; eafnj gS] jktLFkku lkoZtfud izU;kl vfèkfu;e lu~ 1958 dh èkkjk 24 o 18 (2) ds vuqlkj tkap dh tkos&voSèk gSa\ 9- D;k vfLlVasV dehÓuj nsoLFkku dh rk- 30-12-1965 dh ;g QkbafMax dh ;g jktdh; vFkkZr~ Mk;jsDV pktZ dk eafnj gksuk lkfcr ugha gksrk] vc jsl T;wfMdsVk ds fl}kUr ds dkj.k bl fo"k; esa nqckjk tkap ugh dh tk ldrh gSa\ 10-D;k vfLlVasV dehÓuj nsoLFkku dh mä ,DV lu~ 1959 dh nQk 19 ds uhps nh gqbZ rkjh[k 30-12-1965 dh QkbafMax vafre voLFkk (QkbZuy) izkIr dj pqdh gSA vr% LVksiy ds fl}kUr ds dkj.k nqckjk tkap ugh dh tk ldrh \ 11-D;k jktLFkku LVsV ;g Lohdkj dj pqdk gaS fd ;g iap eafnj vkSj eB ljdkjh lEifÙk ugha gSA vr% ,d nQk eatwj djus ds ckn og viuk fu.kZ; cny ugh ldrh\ 12- D;k ;g fu.kZ; djuk fd lEifÙk eqrnkfo;ka iap eafnj chdkusj dh gSa ;k jktLFkku LVsV dh] bl vnkyr ds {ks=kfèkdkj eas ugha gS\ 13-D;k jktLFkku ljdkj iap eafnj chdkusj dks mldh tkxhj xkao dqtVh vkSj diwjhlj ds eqvkots ds fgLls dh ,ot esa tks jde vc nkok ds iSjk ua- 13 o 14 esa ntZ gS] nsrh gSa] og jde vk;ank pkyw j[kus dh vfèkdkjh ugha gSa\ 14-D;k lgk;d vk;qä nsoLFkku tksèkiqj dh rk- 07-12-1976 dks tk;nkn eqUntkZ iSjk 15 ds csoys dh ckcr nh gqbZ Lohd`fr dks mijksDr lgk;d funsÓkd ds rkjh[k 05-08-1977 o nsoLFkku dehÓuj ds gqDe rk- 17-07-1979 ls ugha cnyk tk ldrk D;kasfd ;g nksuksa gqDe ukfdl] izHkko ghu] lkjghu (ok;M) gSa\ 15-D;k bl nkos esa dksVZ Qhl de nh x;h gSa\ 16-D;k nkok vanj fe;kn ugha gS\ 17-D;k ;g nkok eagr Jh lkesÓojkuan Hkkjrh us O;fDrxr gSafl;r ls fd;k gS\ vr% ugh py ldrk\ 18-D;k eqnbZ vthankok eas of.kZr nknjlh (fjyhQ) ikus o fMØh ikus dk vfèkdkjh gS\Þ 3. While deciding issue Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5 the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the respondents in their claim have based the case on a document published in a case in 1899 in the Central Jail, Bikaner Press. A list was got prepared by Maharaja Shri Bheron Singhji Saheb. He got this prepared under what circumstances and in what manner has not been established. Whether there is any order to prepare the list is not established on record. The trial Court has come to the conculsion that merely because it has been published by the Central Jail, Bikaner it cannot be said to be document pertains to the Government functioning. An Urdu book has been filed on record which is private publication yet published by the Govt. Press. No original of Ex.A/1 has been filed. There are no witnesses who have ever seen the original of this document. Apart from this, the trial Court has given consideration to the fact that the State Government has not been maintaining this temple. Only Rs. 1800/- were used to be paid to the Poojari whereas the temple expenses were to the tune of Rs.9500/- P.A. There is a stone inscription (‘Shila Lekh”) which recites that during the time of Maharaja Shri Surat Singhji, the temple was constructed by Shri Dhuni Nathji. In a history book that pertains to the history of Bikaner, it has been noticed that the temple has been constructed by Dhuninathji during the life time of Maharaja Surat Singh which is known as Panch Mandir, which is the temple in dispute. The then Devasthan Commissioner who was the master of ceremony in the Bikaner State has deposed that the temple was not directly managed by the State though some grant was given to it and thus, issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the respondents. 4. Issue No. 3 which related to the management has also been decided against the respondents because there was evidence on record that the King of the State of Bikaner who used to consider the Mahant of this temple as his ‘Guru’ has deposed that the management was with the Mahant of the temple. The temples were constructed by the State to acquire the good will and not to acquire rights over the property. 5. The temples were constructed by the State to acquire the good will and not to acquire rights over the property. 5. Even after the cessation of the State of Bikaner, for the first time the Devasthan Department has made Budgetary Notification for the temple in the year 1979. Thus, it has been held by the trial Court that the Mandir was managed by the disciples of Dhuninathji. Further by simply giving some amount for the maintenance of the temple it cannot be said that the temple is owned by the State Government because by that time the State used to give grant to many temples. The writing on the copper plate which is available on record states that the property has been dedicated to Dhuninathji and progeny of the King will not interfere with it. The progeny of the King meant its successors also. The property belonged to the Trust which is the successors of Dhuninathji and in that view of the matter the trial Court decreed the suit in terms that the temple was owned by Dhuninathji which later on vested in the Trust and the temple is not dependent on the State. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the findings are not based on any cogent evidence and is exclusively based on Ex.A/1 which has not been considered by the trial Court. Except Ex.A/1, there is nothing on record to show that the State ever owned it. This document has been held to be not proved in the light that its origin has not been established. The overwhelming evidence which has been relied on by the trial court in the shape of evidence of Devasthan Commissioner, the master of ceremonies, state unequivocally that the property belonged to Shri Dhuninathji which was created by Dhuninathji and its successors have a right on it and the property has been vested in the State. That being the position, the finding on the issue is not liable to be disturbed. In that view of the matter the decree is not liable to be disturbed. 7. There is no force in appeal, the appeal is dismissed.