JUDGMENT Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—A Suit filed in the year 1963 under Section 92 of ‘The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) for removal of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from the Shebaitship and Trusteeship of the Temple of Sri Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji Maharaj situated in Vrindaban and for framing of a Scheme for appointment of Board of Trustees and vesting the properties of the deity in them has given rise to this First Appeal filed under Section 96, CPC. The preliminary decree was passed on 30th November, 1971 and the final decree was passed on 20th November, 1978. Under the final decree a Scheme was framed and the present First Appeal was filed by plaintiff No. 2 against this decree. 2. Earlier, First Appeal No. 206 of 1971 was filed by defendant No. 1 Goswami Sukumari Lal against the preliminary decree. Cross-objections were also filed by the plaintiffs. The said First Appeal was dismissed with costs by the judgment and decree dated 3rd January, 1973. However, the cross-objections were partly allowed and defendant No. 1 was directed to render correct and faithful account of his dealings with the income of the deity to the Board of Trustees to be appointed under the Scheme of Management. The rest of the preliminary decree dated 30th November, 1971 was affirmed. 3. Original Suit No. 1 of 1963 was filed by two plaintiffs after obtaining the consent of the Advocate General. It was pleaded that Hit-Harvansh Ji Maharaj propounded the tenets of a new cult known as Radha Ballabh Sampradaya in the 16th Century. He founded the worship of the deity of Sri Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji Maharaj for the spiritual benefit of the followers of the Sampradaya and nominated his son Goswami Banchandra as the Manager and Shebait of the said deity. During the Sewapuja of Goswami Banchandra, a devotee by the name of Sunder Das of Delhi constructed a red stone temple at Vrindaban and the deity of Sri Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji Maharaj was installed in the said temple during the first quarter of the 17th Century. The temple was desecrated during the reign of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. One devotee Seth Lallu Bhai Lal Bhai of Bharoach constructed a new temple and dedicated it to Thakur Ji and the deity was installed in this temple. The temple was desecrated during the reign of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. One devotee Seth Lallu Bhai Lal Bhai of Bharoach constructed a new temple and dedicated it to Thakur Ji and the deity was installed in this temple. Ever since then, the worship of deity is continuing in the said temple at Vrindaban. The devotees of Thakur Ji, from time to time, beautified the temple premises. A ‘Golak’ was also kept in the temple for receiving cash offerings from the devotees. The Sewapuja of the deity consists of seven ‘Artis’ which are performed daily in the temple. It was, therefore, claimed that the temple was a public temple and the public had a right to worship and have darshan of the deity and to make offerings. 4. It was also alleged in the plaint that Goswami Banchandra had four sons and the eldest son Goswami Sunder Das became the Shebait of the Temple after his death. The eldest son of Goswami Sunder Das was Goswami Damodar Das who had two sons Goswami Ras Das from one wife and Goswami Bilas Das from another wife. In the course of time the Sewapuja of the deity and the management of the properties of the deity came to be actually performed by the descendants of Goswami Ras Das and Goswami Bilas Das who came to be popularly known as Ras Banshi and Bilas Banshi respectively. In actual practice, the Sewapuja and management was carried out by one representative of each of these two branches in alternative months and these representatives assumed the title ‘Adhikari’ and began to lay claim on the Sewapuja and the management of the temple and its properties. The plaintiffs asserted that this claim was wrong and unfounded. 5. However, from the year 1896 disputes arose amongst the Goswamis of Ras Bans Branch which ultimately resulted in the filing of Original Suit No. 319 of 1933 in the Court of Munsif Mathura. A compromise decree was eventually passed under which the actual management of the temple and its properties was entrusted to a Committee of Vaishnavas during the turn of Ras Bans Branch. 6. It was further alleged in the plaint that Goswami Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, started claiming himself to be the Adhikari of the Bilas Bans Branch. A compromise decree was eventually passed under which the actual management of the temple and its properties was entrusted to a Committee of Vaishnavas during the turn of Ras Bans Branch. 6. It was further alleged in the plaint that Goswami Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, started claiming himself to be the Adhikari of the Bilas Bans Branch. Before him, his father Goswami Ruplal claimed that he was the Adhikari and had carried out the Sewapuja of the deity and the management of its properties during the turn of Bilas Bans Branch. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, however, who are the sons of Goswami Ruplal used to look after the Sewapuja and management of the deity during the turn of their father. 7. The plaintiffs had earlier filed Misc. Case No. 1 of 1959 in the Court of District Judge, Mathura under Section 3 of The Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 and Section 14 of The Religious Endowments Act, 1863 against Ruplalji and his three sons. This Misc. Case was decided on 14th February, 1961. It was held that the temple was a public temple and a direction was given to Goswami Ruplal to furnish all accounts, offerings and the properties of the temple and the expenses for the period of three years. The plaintiffs alleged that incomplete and incorrect accounts were filed. 8. The plaintiffs further alleged that Goswami Ruplal with the active collaboration and connivance of his three sons, defendant Nos. 1 to 3, was guilty of various acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, non-feasance and breach of trust. These acts and omissions disentitled Goswami Ruplal and his sons from acting presently or in future as Trustees or Shebaits of the temple. The details of such acts were mentioned in the plaint. It was also pleaded that the dual system of management of Sewapuja conducted by the Vaishnava Committee on behalf of Ras Bans and by the self styled Adhikaris on behalf of Bilas Bans was not conducive to the best interest of the deity and had become a source of dispute amongst the Goswamis which lowered the prestige and reputation of the deity. It was also alleged that Goswami Ruplal was ailing for several years before his death in 1962 and during this period Goswami Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, was actually performing the Sewapuja and management of the affairs of the temple and, therefore, he was personally liable for rendering account for the period his father was the Adhikari and if it was found that defendant Nos. 2, 3 were also responsible for handling of income and expenditure of the temple, then they should also be asked to furnish the account. 9. Initially the plaintiffs had arrayed 13 persons as defendants. Defendant No. 4 was a member of the Bilas Bans Branch and was impleaded as he did not admit the claim of Goswami Sukumari Lal to be the Adhikari of the Bilas Bans Branch. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 were the President and Secretary of the Vaishnava Committee which managed the affairs of the temple during the turn of Ras Bans Branch. Goswami Brij Bhushan Lal applied for being impleaded as a party and the application was allowed and he was impleaded as defendant No. 14. The Court also directed notices to be issued for inviting other interested persons to put in appearance. Thereafter a number of other Goswamis also applied for being impleaded as defendants and their prayers were accepted and eventually the total number of defendants became 27. 10. Defendant No. 1 Goswami Sukumari Lal filed a written statement but defendant Nos. 2 and 3 did not file any written statement. Some other defendants, namely, defendant Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 also filed written statements. The following issues were framed by the Court : “(1) Whether there is a public religious endowment or a private one? Is the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. maintainable.? (2) Whether there is a valid sanction of the Advocate General for the institution of the suit? (3) Whether there is mis-management and the present trustees need to be removed and new ones need to be appointed.? (4) Whether a new scheme of management needs to be framed.? (5) What properties including cash, the defendants are liable to deliver to new trustees if new Trustees are appointed.? (6) To what relief are the plaintiff entitled? (3) Whether there is mis-management and the present trustees need to be removed and new ones need to be appointed.? (4) Whether a new scheme of management needs to be framed.? (5) What properties including cash, the defendants are liable to deliver to new trustees if new Trustees are appointed.? (6) To what relief are the plaintiff entitled? (7) Have the plaintiffs no right to sue in view of paras 1 and 9 of W.S. of defendant No. 14? (8) Is the suit barred by Section 11, C.P.C.? 11. Issue No. 1 was decided holding that the temple of Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji Maharaj at Vrindaban was a public temple and the plaintiffs were “persons having interest in the Trust” and as such the Suit filed by them was maintainable. Issue No. 2 was decided holding that the consent given by the Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh for the institution of the Suit was valid. Issue No. 7 was decided holding that the plaintiffs had a cause of action and could sue. Issue No. 8 was decided holding that the suit was not barred by Section 11, CPC. 12. Issue No. 3 is the most important issue because the framing of the Scheme depends upon this. The findings recorded by the Trial Court in respect of this issue, therefore, need to be mentioned in detail. 13. The Court found that the office of Adhikari in Bilas Bans Branch devolves according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture and Goswami Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, became the Adhikari in Bilas Bans Branch after the death of his father Goswami Ruplal in 1962. 14. So far as the mis-management of affairs of the temple and the deity by Goswami Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1 and his brothers, defendant Nos. 2 and 3, is concerned, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs had been able to prove : “(1) The defendant No. 1 and his predecessor had been claiming the temple to be a private temple and thus laying a claim adverse to the deity. (2) The Prasad has not been offered to the deity in sufficient quantity so as to be available for distribution to all the devotees and visitors coming to the temple daily. (3) Goswami Roop Lal Ji did not keep the special valuable ornaments of the deity safely and was grossly negligent in this regard. (2) The Prasad has not been offered to the deity in sufficient quantity so as to be available for distribution to all the devotees and visitors coming to the temple daily. (3) Goswami Roop Lal Ji did not keep the special valuable ornaments of the deity safely and was grossly negligent in this regard. The result was theft of ornaments worth about Rs. 80,000/-. Defendants 1 to 3 were actively helping their father Goswami Roop Lal Ji in the management of the temple during that period. Hence the defendant No. 1 should also share the blame of negligence for this huge loss. (4) No inventory of the movable and immovable property of the deity has been maintained. (5) No proper accounts of the offerings made to the deity and other incomes of the deity have been maintained. This has been done deliberately in order to be able to divert the cash offerings made to the deity to the personal use of the Adhikari and his family. (6) The order dated 14-2-61 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1959 for maintaining proper accounts has not been complied with in its true spirit.” 15. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the Court noticed : “The evidence shows that the main income of the deity is from the offerings made by the devotees and the visitors to the temple. The deity does not own any immovable property at Vrindaban or Mathura. The expenses of its Sewapuja and Utsavs are met mainly from the offerings made to it by the devotees and the visitors. The offerings are both in cash and in kind. The cash offerings are either put in the Golak kept in the temple for the purpose or are handed over to the Adhikari in person or remitted by Money Orders. In order to keep a proper account of the offerings thus received it is essential that the Golak should be opened periodically in presence of some respected and responsible persons and devotees. There is no proof that it was ever done by the Adhikari. The defendant No. 1 tried to say that he used to open the Golak in the presence of some outsiders but could not mention the name of any such outsider. He did not produce any witness to support him on this point. There is no proof that it was ever done by the Adhikari. The defendant No. 1 tried to say that he used to open the Golak in the presence of some outsiders but could not mention the name of any such outsider. He did not produce any witness to support him on this point. When the defendant No. 1 denied the right of anyone to see the accounts of temple how could he think of the democratic step of counting the contents of the Golak in the presence of anyone. The assertion of defendant No. 1 that he had been opening the Golak in presence of some persons does not appear to be correct. The cash offerings received in the office of the Adhikari could be properly accounted for only if proper receipts had been issued for such payments. The defendant No. 1 said that he used to give receipts to those persons who wanted them. No such receipt or counterfoil has been produced by defendant No. 1 in support of his contention. No devotee has been produced to place the receipt issued to him before this Court. Since the year 1946 allegations were being made against Gos. Rooplalji and his sons that they had been diverting the offerings made to the deity, to their personal use. This was so alleged in the plaint of suit No. 9 of 1946. This was also alleged in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1959. Since the cash offerings made by the devotees and the visitors to the temple were of an uncertain and variable character and charges were being levelled against the Adhikari in respect of such offerings, it was highly essential to maintain proper accounts of such offerings in order to prove bonafides of the Adhikari. This was not done and at every stage it was contended that the temple was a private temple and no one had a right to see the accounts. This conduct of the Adhikari creates strong suspicion and suggests that he was doing so with some ulterior motive. There could be no other reason for this conduct of the Adhikari except that he was diverting some of the offerings to his own use. There could be no other reason for not acting openly in order to silence the complaints and insinuations of others. It is true that Gos. There could be no other reason for this conduct of the Adhikari except that he was diverting some of the offerings to his own use. There could be no other reason for not acting openly in order to silence the complaints and insinuations of others. It is true that Gos. Roop Lal Ji was Adhikari till his death in April, 1962, but the record shows that his three sons were taking active part in the management of the affairs of the temple on behalf of Gos. Roop Lal Ji. One or more of these sons were found by the Receiver Sri J.P. Garg, Advocate, in the temple from the year 1947 onwards. These brothers were acting on behalf of their father in connection with the management of the temple. Hence it can be said that the defendant No. 1 is also responsible for the above said lapses which took place during the lifetime of his father. ................................ The failure of defendant No. 1 and his father to maintain proper accounts of the offerings made to the deity cannot be ignored as a petty act of negligence. The failure appears to be deliberate and with a definite purpose. The definite purpose seems to be to keep everything vague and in the dark so that the offerings made for the deity may be diverted to personal use of the Adhikari and his family at his sweet will. There can be no other explanation for this persistent and deliberate failure to maintain accounts. If a person has no personal axe to grind and is acting only in an altruistic spirit for the spiritual benefit of the public and his own, he would not fail to maintain accounts and show them to the public. The maintenance of the accounts would not have in any way affected defendant No. 1’s position as Adhikari and would not have amounted to any interference in the Sewapuja of the deity and the management of its affairs. In this connection the vast difference between the income of the two managements may be pointed out. The copy of the account of the Vaishnava Committee in the Punjab National Bank, Vrindaban, shows credit balance of Rs. 1,14,197.43 P. The Committee has been managing the affairs only for the last 18 years. In this connection the vast difference between the income of the two managements may be pointed out. The copy of the account of the Vaishnava Committee in the Punjab National Bank, Vrindaban, shows credit balance of Rs. 1,14,197.43 P. The Committee has been managing the affairs only for the last 18 years. The defendant No. 1 or his father did not have any bank account of the income and offerings of the deity. There could not be a vast difference between the offerings received during the period of Sewapuja of Ras Bans branch and the Sewapuja of Bilas Bans branch, so as to leave a balance of over a lakh of rupees in the hands of one management and none in the hands of the other. This circumstance alone speaks volumes against defendant No. 1 and his father. If the contention of defendant No. 1 that there has been no diversion of the income during his turn was correct, then there should not have been such a difference in the financial condition of the two managements. ............................ No inventory of the ornaments, Poshaks and other belongings of the deity were produced by Defendant No. 1 or his father in any previous litigation to prove their bonafides. Even in this suit no such inventory has been filed though defendant No. 1 asserted that he possessed one. The defendant No. 1 also admitted that during the last 10 years of his Sewapuja he had received offerings in kind for the deity and he had an inventory of the same with him. This inventory was not produced. The receipts in kind were not mentioned in the account books. Thus no one except the defendant No. 1 knows that those offerings in kind were and he can at his sweet will change their number and nature.” 16. The Court, therefore, concluded that there was gross mis-management of the affairs of the deity and the temple by defendant No. 1 Goswami Sukumari Lal during the turn of Bilas Bans Branch. 17. The Court then examined whether Goswami Sukumari Lal should be removed and whether the Vaishnava Committee during the turn of Ras Bans Branch should be removed so that a unified system was set up for the management of the affairs of the deity and the temple throughout the year. 18. 17. The Court then examined whether Goswami Sukumari Lal should be removed and whether the Vaishnava Committee during the turn of Ras Bans Branch should be removed so that a unified system was set up for the management of the affairs of the deity and the temple throughout the year. 18. In respect of the aforesaid first aspect, the Court found : “The status of Gos. Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, is that of a Shebait. It is not disputed that in certain contingencies even a Shebait can be removed from his office. The facts found against defendant No. 1 are, in my opinion, quite compelling so as to justify removal of defendant No. 1 from the office of Shebait of Th. Sri Radha Ballabhji Maharaj and its properties. If he is allowed to continue in that office the mis-management will not come to an end and new litigation would arise. Defendant No. 1 did not learn a lesson from the previous litigations and did not try to place the management of the affairs during his turn of Sewapuja on a sound footing above reproach and criticism. The failure to maintain the accounts, cannot, in this case, be taken to be a petty negligence. The failure has been deliberate and persistent and with a purpose. The uncertain and variable character of the cash offerings made it imperative for defendant No. 1 to keep proper accounts as discussed above. The irresistible conclusion is that the accounts were not maintained so that the Adhikari could divert a portion of the cash offerings to his own use without being detected by anyone. The defendant No. 1 is acting in an obstructionist way in the proper maintenance of the temple as would be clear from the discussion in the preceding paragraph. On a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances I am clearly of the view that it is a fit case where the Shebait namely Gos. Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, should be removed from his office. It is very essential for the welfare of the deity and its affairs.” (emphasis supplied) 19. On a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances I am clearly of the view that it is a fit case where the Shebait namely Gos. Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, should be removed from his office. It is very essential for the welfare of the deity and its affairs.” (emphasis supplied) 19. In respect of the second aspect mentioned above, namely whether there was a requirement of having a unified system for the management of the affairs of the deity throughout the year, the Court formed an opinion that it would not be desirable to make any change by imposing a new Scheme for the management of the affairs of the deity throughout the year. The Court, however, observed that the position may be reviewed by the Court suo motto or an application made in this behalf after seven years from the date the Scheme was framed for the management of the temple during the turn of Sewapuja of Bilas Bans branch. 20. The Court, accordingly, decided issue No. 3 in the following manner : “In view of the above I hold that Gos. Sukumari Lal defendant No. 1 deserves to be removed and a new Scheme of management needs to be framed to take over the Sewapuja and management of the affairs of the deity and its properties and the temple during the turn of Bilas Bans branch. The decision of the question whether a unified management for the temple for the whole year should be established is deferred for the time being.” 21. In respect of Issue No. 4, the Court came to the conclusion that in view of the findings recorded while deciding Issue No. 3, it must be held that a new Scheme should be framed for management of the Sewapuja and the affairs and the properties of the deity and the temple during the turn of Bilas Bans Branch. It also observed : “Some considerations which may be borne in mind while framing a new Scheme of management have been discussed in the preceding pages. Some other broad principles which may be observed while framing the new Scheme may be indicated here. As far as possible only the followers of Radha Vallabhiya Sampradaya should be associated with the management. It also observed : “Some considerations which may be borne in mind while framing a new Scheme of management have been discussed in the preceding pages. Some other broad principles which may be observed while framing the new Scheme may be indicated here. As far as possible only the followers of Radha Vallabhiya Sampradaya should be associated with the management. The actual Sewapuja of the deity in the Nij Mandir should be arranged through Goswamis of Bilas Bans provided they profess the tenets of the Sampradaya and their conduct also conforms to the standard of purity of body and behaviour associated with persons discharging such pious and religious duties. The overall charge of the management of the religious and secular duties should be under the control of one body. These principles are not intended to be exhaustive. In order to frame a proper scheme it would be desirable to invite the parties concerned to make suggestions and proposals in this behalf. Hence no scheme is being laid down in this judgment.” 22. In respect of Issue No. 5, the Court observed that it was not possible to decide this issue in the absence of any evidence. 23. In respect of Issue No. 6 the Court observed : “The plaintiffs have prayed for removal of defendants 1 to 4 from the Shebaitship. They have also prayed for removal of such other Goswamis as claim exclusive title in this temple or disown the temple to be a public temple, from the Shebaitship. I have held in a preceding finding that the Adhikari in the turn of Sewa of Bilas Bans branch succeeds according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture and Gos. Sukumari Lal defendant No. 1 is the present Adhikari. This finding negatives the claim of all other defendants and descendants of Gos. Bilas Dasji to the Shebaitship of the deity and the temple. Other defendants have not been found to be in actual enjoyment of the rights of Shebaitship of the deity and the temple. As such it is not very essential to pass an order of the removal of such persons from the Shebaitship of the deity. The plaintiffs appear to have made this comprehensive prayer for removal of Shebaits as a matter of abundant caution. It would be enough to direct removal of defendant No. 1 who alone is the Shebait.” 24. As such it is not very essential to pass an order of the removal of such persons from the Shebaitship of the deity. The plaintiffs appear to have made this comprehensive prayer for removal of Shebaits as a matter of abundant caution. It would be enough to direct removal of defendant No. 1 who alone is the Shebait.” 24. The suit was, accordingly, decreed as follows : “The suit is decreed. It is hereby declared and decreed that the temple of Sri Radha Ballabhji Maharaj at Vrindaban is a public temple and the deity of Sri Radha Ballabhji Maharaj is a public deity and the properties belonging to the deity constitute a public trust. Gos. Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, is hereby removed from the office of the Shebait of the said deity and the temple and the management of all the properties of the deity during the turn of Bilas Bans branch. The management of the Sewapuja of the deity and the temple and the properties and income during the turn of Sewapuja of Bilas Bans branch shall vest in a Board of Trustees. This Board of Trustees shall be appointed and act in terms of a Scheme to be framed by this Court. The Board of Trustees shall be entitled to have possession of the deity and the temple and its properties from defendant No. 1 during the turn of Sewapuja of Bilas Bans branch. The plaintiffs and the defendants are allowed 30 days time to give their proposals and suggestions for framing the scheme. They should also give the names of those followers of Radha Vallabhiya Sampradaya and Goswamis who may be appointed on the Board of Trustees and also may be associated with the performance of religious duties. If this is not done this Court shall proceed to frame a scheme by itself. The question whether a unified management for the temple for the whole year should be established, is left open for the time being and shall be decided later on as provided on page 66 of this judgment. The prayer for a direction to defendant No. 1 and other defendants to render true and faithful accounts of their dealings with the income of the deity is hereby disallowed. However, Gos. The prayer for a direction to defendant No. 1 and other defendants to render true and faithful accounts of their dealings with the income of the deity is hereby disallowed. However, Gos. Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, shall submit a true and complete inventory of all the properties-immovable, movable, ornaments, Poshaks and other valuables—belonging to the deity, in this Court in 30 days. Thereafter an inquiry shall be held to determine the true extent and nature of such properties. If any such property is found loss to the deity on account of any act or negligence of defendant No. 1, he shall make good the loss to the trustees. The Board of Trustees shall be entitled to have possession of all such properties from Defendant No. 1.” 25. As noticed hereinabove, the First Appeal filed by defendant No. 1 Goswami Sukumari Lal against the said preliminary decree was dismissed by this Court by the judgment and order dated 3rd January, 1973. However, the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs were allowed and defendant No. 1 was directed to render correct and faithful account of his dealings with the income of the deity to the Board of Trustees. 26. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that after the preliminary decree dated 30th November, 1971 was passed, an interim arrangement was made by the Court by the order dated 14th December, 1971 by which Sri Magan Lal Sharma, Ex-President of the Municipal Board, Vrindaban was appointed to carry out the following arrangement : “I have given my earnest consideration to the entire matter. In my judgment, though I have ordered removal of defendant No. 1 from the Shebaitship of the Deity and the Temple during the turn of Sewa Puja of Bilas Bansh, I have not considered defendant No. 1 to be unfit for being associated in the Sewa Puja of the Deity. I think no harm will be occasioned if defendant No. 1 is allowed to perform the Sewa Puja, i.e. the religious functions concerning the temple and Deity during the turn of Bilas Bansh. ........ I think the following arrangements may be made : One man may be appointed to receive all such offerings whether in cash or in kind, during the Sewa Puja or Bilas Bansh or received by money orders or drafts or registered letters from outside and addressed to defendant No. 1 at any time. ........ I think the following arrangements may be made : One man may be appointed to receive all such offerings whether in cash or in kind, during the Sewa Puja or Bilas Bansh or received by money orders or drafts or registered letters from outside and addressed to defendant No. 1 at any time. When the turn of Sewa Puja of Bilas Bansh starts near about 1st or 2nd January, 1972, the Golak placed in the Temple should be sealed in the presence of four or five respectable persons, with the seal of the person appointed, and it should be opened on the conclusion of the turn of Bilas Bansh in presence of five respectable persons, and the contents should be counted down and noted. The post office should be informed that all money orders and registered letters coming from outside and addressed to Shri Sukumari Lal defendant No. 1, or the Deity, Shri Radha Vallabh Ji Maharaj, c/o Goswami Sukumari Lal, shall be handed over to the appointed person, who shall keep a full account of the money received by money orders or drafts or cash contained in the registered letters. Any covering letter contained in the registered letters should also be preserved to enable this court to determine if the contents were meant personally for defendant No. 1 or for the Deity. If the registered letters contained only letters and no drafts or cash, they should be handed over to defendant No. 1 after attaining a receipt from him. ................ I, therefore, appoint Shri Magan Lal Sharma, who is an ex-president of the Municipal Board of Vrindaban for the purpose of carrying out the above order. ..............” 27. This arrangement was done since the Court had noticed in the preliminary decree that though Goswami Sukumari Lal had been removed from the Shebaitship of the deity and the temple during the term of the Sewapuja of Bilas Bans Branch, but he was not unfit for performing the Sewapuja of the deity. 28. However, Sri Magan Lal Sharma complained that Goswami Sukumari Lal was not cooperating and was causing impediments in the management and, therefore, on 13th January, 1972 another order was passed appointing Sri Magan Lal Sharma with full rights of Sewapuja and management. 28. However, Sri Magan Lal Sharma complained that Goswami Sukumari Lal was not cooperating and was causing impediments in the management and, therefore, on 13th January, 1972 another order was passed appointing Sri Magan Lal Sharma with full rights of Sewapuja and management. This order was, however, modified by the High Court on 25th February, 1972 to the extent that Goswami Sukumari Lal was allowed to carry on Sewapuja of the deity but the same was to be done under the directions of the Receiver. It was also directed that the expenses of Rajbhog of the deity was to be paid by the Receiver. 29. The Receiver also moved an application before the Trial Court on 24th March, 1972 mentioning therein certain difficulties and a detailed order was passed on 12th August, 1972 directing the Receiver to take possession of the office used by Goswami Sukumari Lal since it was found from the reports of the Receiver that the presence of Goswami Sukumari Lal in the office was the root cause of all mischief. It was also ordered that if Goswami Sukumari Lal was a Guru of some persons then he could carry out this part of his spiritual or religious functions at his house but not from the office in the Temple since he was misguiding the devotees who came to make offerings to the deity. 30. It also needs to be mentioned that the Miscellaneous proceedings in the case were abated by the Trial Court by the order dated 20th October, 1976 in view of the provisions of the U.P. Public Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Ordinance, 1976 and so the Receiver ceased to exist. This order was set aside by the High Court on 2nd May, 1977 in Civil Revision No. 2599 of 1976 filed by plaintiff No. 2 Jasoda Nandan Pachori. It was, however, still contended by Goswami Sukumari Lal that the order of the High Court would not result in revival of the order appointing the Receiver but this submission was rejected by the Trial Court by the order dated 1st June, 1977. The Court also rejected the submission of Goswami Sukumari Lal that even if he was removed from the office of Adhikari of the Temple by the preliminary decree dated 30th November, 1971, then too the rights of Adhikari devolved on his eldest son Goswami Radhesh Lal. The Court also rejected the submission of Goswami Sukumari Lal that even if he was removed from the office of Adhikari of the Temple by the preliminary decree dated 30th November, 1971, then too the rights of Adhikari devolved on his eldest son Goswami Radhesh Lal. In this connection it was observed by the Court that the effect of the preliminary decree was that the office of Adhikari of Bilas Bans Branch came to an end forever and the Board of Trustees was to be appointed in terms of the Scheme of Management which was to be framed by the Court and so the eldest son Goswami Radhesh Lal did not possess any right of his own. The Court also observed that Goswami Radhesh Lal cannot deemed to be the Adhikari, as alleged by Goswami Sukumari Lal, as the preliminary decree by which Goswami Sukumari Lal was removed from the office of the Adhikari was not only binding on him but was also binding on his sons and legal representatives. 31. Pursuant to the preliminary decree dated 30th November, 1971, the parties submitted various proposals and suggestions for framing the Scheme. Plaintiff No. 2 submitted a Scheme (Paper No. 152-C), defendant No. 8 submitted a Scheme (Paper No. 150-C), defendant No. 1 submitted a Scheme (Paper No. 164-C), defendant No. 15 submitted a Scheme (Paper No. 165-C). A Scheme was also submitted by Sri Rakhal Das Advocate. 32. While framing the Scheme, the Court noticed that in view of the observations made in the preliminary decree, defendant No. 1 should be allowed to do Sewapuja of the deity so long as his profession and conduct was in conformity with the tenets of the Radha Ballabh Sampradaya and the observations made therein that the religious duties were to be performed by Goswami Sukumari Lal under the overall supervision of the Committee to be set up to look after the secular affairs of the temple shows that Goswami Sukumari Lal defendant No. 1 should be appointed as Adhikari to do Sewapuja of the deity but these religious duties should be performed by him under the supervision of the Committee to be set up. The Court further directed that the status of defendant No. 1 as a Guru in relation to the devotees of the Radha Ballabh Sampradaya shall be maintained to enable him to receive the offerings made by the followers who consider him to be their Guru and the offerings so received shall be his personal property since it was observed in the preliminary decree that the removal of Goswami Sukumari Lal defendant No. 1 from the office of Shebaitship of the deity will not in any way affect his status as a Guru vis-a-vis the followers of the Radha Ballabh Sampradaya. Further, the Court also observed that the succession to the office of Adhikari will be according to the rule of primogeniture in the family of defendant No. 1. 33. After having made the aforesaid observations, the Court framed the Scheme and the relevant clauses are as follows : “(1) There shall be the Board of Trustees to be named Sri Radha Vallabhji Maharaj Managing Committee, Vrindaban. The management during the term of Sewapuja of Sri Bilas Bans Branch of Sri Radha Vallabhji Maharaj, shall vest in this Committee. This Committee will have its office in the premises of the temple of Sri Radha Vallabhji Maharaj, Vrindaban. ............. (4) The committee shall have no power to grant any lease or demise any premises or let out on rent any premises of Thakurji without the prior approval of the District Judge, Mathura. (5) The committee shall keep an up-to-date list of movable and immovable properties of Sri Thakurji. In case of jewellery, full description and the weight etc. alongwith their estimated value, should be also mentioned in the register meant for keeping the details of the properties of Sri Thakurji. ................ (7) Sri Sukumari Lal Goswami, defendant No. 1, shall hold the office of Adhikari of the said deity Sri Thakurji and he will have the right to perform the Sewapuja of the deity in accordance with the established custom of Radha Vallabhiya Sampradaya. (8) The committee shall also have supervision over the office of Adhikari to see that the Sewapuja of the deity is being performed according to the tenants of the Sampradaya. (9) This office of Adhikari shall devolve upon the heirs of defendant No. 1 according to the rule of primogeniture from amongst the family members of Sri Roop Lal Ji of Bilas Bans Branch. (9) This office of Adhikari shall devolve upon the heirs of defendant No. 1 according to the rule of primogeniture from amongst the family members of Sri Roop Lal Ji of Bilas Bans Branch. (10) The defendant No. 1 or descendants of Sri Roop Lal Ji successors to the office of Adhikari shall be entitled to receive the offerings from their devotees and followers who consider defendant No. 1, and such successors, as Guru and such offerings shall be the personal and exclusive property of the Adhikari and such successors of Sri Roop Lal Ji. (11) The offerings made by the devotees to the deity Sri Thakurji, shall be the property of the deity and the Adhikari or his successors cannot claim any personal right in such offerings. However, in order to avoid any mis-understanding between the personal offerings and the offerings given to the deity, the devotees and the followers shall disclose the denote whether they are making offerings and giving donations to the Adhikari believing him as their Guru, or to the deity. For this purpose the committee shall maintain a separate register in which the offerings given in the name of the deity shall be recorded. (12) The committee shall have its President, Vice-President and Secretary. The Adhikari of the deity Sri Thakurji shall be ex-officio President for the said committee. (13) The Vice-President and the Secretary shall be elected by the members of the committee by majority votes. The Vice-President shall be elected from amongst the members of the elected committee. The Secretary shall be elected from the male adult members of the families of Bilas Bans Branch and Ras Bans Branch for alternate terms by rotation. The Secretary shall be an educated person preferably a graduate having some legal experience. The Vice-President shall have the right to vote over the resolution of the committee. (14) The Adhikari shall also have the right to vote in electing the Vice-President and Secretary and in respect of the resolution of the committee. But the Secretary shall have no right to vote over any resolution of the committee. (15) The committee shall hold its meeting in every two months during the turn of Sewapuja of Bilas Bans Branch in the premises of this temple in Vrindaban and maintain the proceedings in the Proceedings Book, kept by the committee. But the Secretary shall have no right to vote over any resolution of the committee. (15) The committee shall hold its meeting in every two months during the turn of Sewapuja of Bilas Bans Branch in the premises of this temple in Vrindaban and maintain the proceedings in the Proceedings Book, kept by the committee. The committee shall also hold meeting in every three months when there shall be no turn of Sewapuja of this Bilas Bans Branch. The meetings of the committee shall be presided by the Adhikari, Ex-Officio President, and in his absence, by the Vice-President. ................. (18) The Adhikari of the deity will be entitled to use the premises of the temple to fulfil his duties of Sewapuja of the deity. ................. (21) The term of the committee shall be of 5 years from the date of its assuming the office. After expiry of 5 years, a new elected committee shall assume the charge of management in accordance with this scheme. ................... (26) The following persons shall have the right to vote for election of the members of the Committee : (1) The male members not below the age of 21 years of the families of Bilas Bans Branch and Rash Bans Branch. (2) Any other male devotee not below the age of 21 years of this Sampradaya who enrolls himself as member, after depositing the prescribed fee of Rs. 1001/- provided his enrollment has taken place before one month to the date of election. (27) Defendant No. 1 and his family members are descendants of Hit Haribans Maharaj, who propounded cult of Radha Vallabhiya Sampradaya and founded the worship of the deity of Tha. Radha Vallabhaji Maharaj and these descendants have got no other source of their livelihood except the offerings of this deity, hence the defendant No. 1 and his family members shall be given 30% (thirty percent) of the income of the deity for their maintenance. This 30% (thirty percent) income shall be opportioned according to the audit report duly approved by the District Judge, Mathura. (28) The Adhikari shall be entitled to get the Poshaks (dress) of the deity after they are cost off from Sewapuja. (29) The Adhikari shall do and supervise the Sewapuja and Bhograg and all the Arties of the deity. This 30% (thirty percent) income shall be opportioned according to the audit report duly approved by the District Judge, Mathura. (28) The Adhikari shall be entitled to get the Poshaks (dress) of the deity after they are cost off from Sewapuja. (29) The Adhikari shall do and supervise the Sewapuja and Bhograg and all the Arties of the deity. (30) The Adhikari and his family members shall be entitled to have daily ‘Prasad’ in its customary manner offered to the deity. 30. (wrongly repeated) The Annual Savings from the income of the deity shall be kept in Fixed Deposits in State Bank of India at Mathura or Vrindaban Branch in the name of the deity. Besides this some, Running Accounts be kept in the Savings Bank to meet the emergency expenses of the temple. This account will be jointly operated by the Adhikari and the Secretary, duly authorised by the committee. The withdrawals can only be made by the Secretary and Adhikari after necessary sanction is obtained from the District Judge, Mathura. ....................... (34) The Committee can always approach the District Judge, Mathura for seeking guidance in day to day working of the management of the temple. The District Judge, Mathura can make additions, alterations and deletions in these rules as may be necessary for the efficient management of the temple subject to the directions and observations made by the District Judge, Mathura in his judgment dated 30-11-1971 of suit No. 1/63. (35) The election of the Committee shall take place in the last week of January, 1979 so that the Committee of Management takes over charge of management by 1-2-79. Till the elected Committee takes over charge the Receiver already appointed by the Court, shall continue the management. The persons qualified to vote should be duly registered as directed before, latest by 15-1-1979.” 34. It is the framing of this Scheme that led to the filing of this First Appeal by plaintiff No. 2. 35. I have heard Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary learned Senior Counsel for the heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 Goswami Sukumari Lal and Sri Manish Nigam for respondent No. 14. 36. It is the framing of this Scheme that led to the filing of this First Appeal by plaintiff No. 2. 35. I have heard Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary learned Senior Counsel for the heirs of deceased respondent No. 1 Goswami Sukumari Lal and Sri Manish Nigam for respondent No. 14. 36. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that during the pendency of this First Appeal, the sole appellant Jasoda Nandan Lal Pachauri died and he was substituted by Brij Nandan Brijesh, who was also a plaintiff in the Original Suit, as Appellant No. 1 and by Hit Harvansh Lal Pachauri, a devotee of Radha Ballabh Ji Maharaj, as Appellant No. 2. However, Brij Nandan Brijesh and Hit Harvansh Lal Pachauri also died and ultimately Radha Ballabh Goswami and Banshi Ballabh Goswami have been impleaded as Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively by the order dated 15th December, 2003. 37. It also needs to be mentioned that respondent No. 1 Goswami Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, also died and he was substituted by his heirs including his eldest son Radesh Lal as Respondent No. 1/1. Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 13, 19, 20, 24, 27 and 29 also died during the pendency of this First Appeal and the application moved for abatement on account of their death was rejected by the Court by the order dated 6th July, 2001 as it was found that the suit had been filed under Section 92 CPC primarily for removal of the Adhikari. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 28 have also died and the Appellants have moved an application that the heirs may not be brought on record. This application has been allowed by order of date. 38. Cross-Objections were also filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 5 but they have been rejected as the application filed by them for condoning the delay in filing the Cross-Objections has been rejected by order of date. 39. This Court initially passed a stay order on 29th January, 1979 in this First Appeal but subsequently by the order dated 22nd September, 1993 this Court appointed the Ist Additional District Judge, Mathura as the Receiver of the Temple and he was directed to abide by the order dated 14th January, 1972 by which the first Receiver had been appointed. 40. 40. It is the contention of Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned counsel for the Appellants that the Scheme of Management that has been framed under the impugned final decree is not in conformity with the preliminary decree and in this connection he referred to various clauses of the Scheme particularly to Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 30 (wrongly repeated). He emphasised that under the preliminary decree, Goswami Sukumari Lal defendant No. 1 had been removed from the office of Adhikari and a Scheme of Management was to be framed for the Bilas Bans Branch period. He also pointed out that under the preliminary decree by removing defendant No. 1 from the office of Adhikari, the intention was to take away his rights to manage the properties, income and offerings of the deity but as there was no evidence to show that the personal conduct of defendant No. 1 did not conform to the tenets of Radha Ballabh Sampradaya, the Court ordered that he could be associated with the Sewapuja of the deity but the Court also made it clear that the other Goswami’s of Bilas Bans Branch should also be associated with this work of Sewapuja as this would improve the management of the daily Sewapuja and the religious functions and would also restore the dignity of the temple. The Court, however, also made it clear that the performance of the religious duties will have to be under the overall supervision of the Committee which was to be set up. 41. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that Goswami Sukumari Lal could not have been appointed as the Adhikari under the Scheme of Management that was prepared and nor could the office of Adhikari devolve upon the heirs of Goswami Sukumari Lal according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture. He also submitted that Goswami Sukumari Lal and his family members could not have been given 30% income of the deity for their maintenance and nor could the Adhikari get the dress of the deity after the Sewapuja. 42. It needs to be mentioned that the Appellants have no objection to Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34 and 35. 43. 42. It needs to be mentioned that the Appellants have no objection to Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34 and 35. 43. Learned counsel for the Appellants, therefore, raised these objections with respect to the following Clauses of the Scheme : Clause 7 : Goswami Sukumari Lal had been removed from the office of ‘Adhikari’ under the preliminary decree and so he could not hold the office of Adhikari. Clause 8 : The objection is about use of the word ‘office of Adhikari’ since the office of Adhikari had been abolished. Clause 9 : The objection is that Goswami Sukumari Lal had been removed from the office of Adhikari and the office having been abolished cannot devolve upon the heirs of defendant No. 1 according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture from amongst the family members of Rooplal of Bilas Bans Branch. Clause 10 : This is objected as it will facilitate the descendants of Goswami Sukumari Lal to divert the offerings of the deity for their personal use as was done in the past and it would be contrary to the preliminary decree and against the order dated 12th August, 1972 passed by the District Judge, Mathura wherein a direction was issued that Goswami Sukumari Lal shall do his preachings as a Guru from his house. The use of the word ‘Adhikari’ is also objected. Clause 11 : The use of the word ‘Adhikari’ is objected and also offerings made to the Guru in the Temple. Clause 12 : The nomination of the ‘Adhikari’ as Ex-officio President of the Committee is objected for the reason mentioned in the objections to Clauses 7 and 9. It is, therefore, suggested that the post of President should be filled up by election. Clause 13 : It is suggested that the Clause should be redrafted in a manner that the post of President and Vice President is filled up by election and special provision should not be made for either Bilas Bans or Ras Bans and no Veto power should be conferred on the President. Clauses 14 & 18 : The use of the word ‘Adhikari’ is objected and no such provision is required to be made as the office of the Adhikari has been abolished. Clauses 14 & 18 : The use of the word ‘Adhikari’ is objected and no such provision is required to be made as the office of the Adhikari has been abolished. Clause 26 : The objection is about restriction of the membership to the two branches alone. It is suggested that the Committee should have representation from all the Branches of the founder Sri Hit Harvansh Ji Maharaj. Clauses 27 & 28 : This is objected on the ground that the contesting respondent had not set up a case to receive any share from the offerings made to the deity. The use of the word ‘Adhikari’ is also objected. Clauses 29 and 30 : The use of the word ‘Adhikari’ is objected and it is suggested that it may be replaced by the word ‘President’. Clause 30 (wrongly repeated) : The use of the word ‘Adhikari’ is objected and it is suggested that it may be replaced by the word ‘President’ for operation of the account of the deity. 44. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the heirs of respondent No. 1 Goswami Sukumari Lal, however, contended that except for some minor mistakes there is no infirmity in the Scheme as it is in accordance with the preliminary decree. According to him, under the preliminary decree, Goswami Sukumari Lal could continue as the Adhikari for all purposes except for performance of the secular functions. It is his submission that the post of Adhikari had not been abolished under the preliminary decree and Sewapuja can be done only by a Shebait or Adhikari. He also submitted that under the preliminary decree it was found as a fact that the office of Adhikari in Bilas Bans Branch devolves according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture and so there is no infirmity in Clauses 7 and 9 of the Scheme. He placed emphasis on the judgment and decree rendered on 28th September, 1957 in Original Suit No. 9 of 1946 that had been filed by Goswami Radha Ballabh against Goswami Rooplal for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from exercising the rights of Adhikari in the temple and submitted that the Adhikari had a right to receive the offerings. He also submitted that the acts and misconduct and mismanagement were directed against Goswami Rooplal and not against Goswami Sukumari Lal or Goswami Radesh Lal. 45. He also submitted that the acts and misconduct and mismanagement were directed against Goswami Rooplal and not against Goswami Sukumari Lal or Goswami Radesh Lal. 45. In respect of the objections raised by learned counsel for the appellants to the various Clauses of the Scheme he submitted : Clause 7 : The preliminary decree does not hold that the office of Adhikari will not devolve according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture and shall be abolished or that the eldest son shall not be entitled to become Adhikari and, in fact, the tenor shows that succession to the office of Adhikari has been maintained and they shall continue to act as religious Guru and that Goswami Sukumari Lal has not been removed from the office of Adhikari. Clause 9 : No objection can be taken as the preliminary decree holds that the office of ‘Adhikari’ devolves according to the rule of primogeniture and since Goswami Sukumari Lal is dead, Goswami Radesh Lal has become the ‘Adhikari’ against whom there are no findings about misconduct. Clause 10 : This finding is in accordance with the age old customs of the Sampradaya and has been rightly continued. Clause 11 : Being the religious Head and Guru of the Sampradaya, the ‘Adhikari’ gets offerings from his devotees as personal gift and the same has been rightly allowed to be retained by him. Clause 12 : As the ‘Adhikari’ has not been removed from the office, the office of ‘Adhikari’ has been rightly allowed to continue and devolves upon the heirs of Goswami Sukumari Lal. The ‘Adhikari’ being the religious Head, has rightly being made the ‘Ex-officio President’ of the Committee. Clause 14 : There is no reason to deprive the ‘Adhikari’ of his right to vote. Clause 18 : The ‘Adhikari’ has throughout been doing the Sewapuja in the Temple which cannot be done at any other place. Clauses 27 & 28 : The objection of the appellants is not correct since these clauses are in accordance with the preliminary decree. The ‘Adhikari’ is entitled to get the share in the offerings and 30% of the offerings will enable him to maintain a decent living. It has also been the tradition and custom of the Sampradaya that the poshaks of the deity are given to the ‘Adhikari’ after they are cast off. The ‘Adhikari’ is entitled to get the share in the offerings and 30% of the offerings will enable him to maintain a decent living. It has also been the tradition and custom of the Sampradaya that the poshaks of the deity are given to the ‘Adhikari’ after they are cast off. Clauses 29, 30 & 30 (wrongly repeated) : The word ‘Adhikari’ has been rightly used. 46. Sri Manish Nigam learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 14 submitted that the said defendant had filed a Scheme but that Scheme has been ignored and the present Scheme that has been framed is not beneficial to the deity. He also submitted that under the preliminary decree, the office of Adhikari was abolished and so Adhikari could not have been appointed and nor any rights could have been conferred upon him as provided for under the various Clauses of the Scheme. 47. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 48. The foremost question that arises for consideration is whether Goswami Sukumari Lal had been removed from the office of Adhikari and whether his heirs can claim appointment to the office of Adhikari according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture. This has been elaborately dealt with in the preliminary decree while deciding Issue No. 3. The Court found that Goswami Rooplal was the Adhikari of the Temple in the Bilas Bans Branch up to his death in April, 1962 after which his eldest son Goswami Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1 became the Adhikari of the Temple in the Bilas Bans Branch. The Court also found as a fact that Goswami Rooplal was ailing for two or three years before his death and Goswami Sukumari Lal was, for all practical purposes, the Adhikari during that period and the three sons of Goswami Rooplal were taking active part in the management of the affairs of the Temple. The Court, accordingly, came to the conclusion that Goswami Sukumari Lal was also responsible for the mismanagement which had taken place during the lifetime of his father. The Court, accordingly, came to the conclusion that Goswami Sukumari Lal was also responsible for the mismanagement which had taken place during the lifetime of his father. After having found that the plaintiffs had been able to establish gross mismanagement by Goswami Sukumari Lal and his father, the Court examined whether Goswami Sukumari Lal should be removed from his office and on a consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that it was a fit case where Goswami Sukumari Lal should be removed from the office of Adhikari as that was absolutely necessary for the welfare of the deity and its affairs. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows : “On a careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances I am clearly of the view that it is a fit case where the Shebait namely Gos. Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, should be removed from his office. It is very essential for the welfare of the deity and its affairs.” 49. The Court then examined the relief claimed by the plaintiff for removing defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from Shebaitship and for removing such other Goswami’s from Shebaitship who claimed exclusive title in this Temple. The Court observed that the office of Adhikari in the turn of Sewapuja in the Bilas Bans Branch succeeds according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture and so the claims of all other defendants and descendants of Goswami Bilas Das to the Shebaitship of the deity and the Temple was negatived. The preliminary decree was confirmed by this Court in the First Appeal. Thus, there can be no doubts that Goswami Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1 was removed from the office of Adhikari and the heirs of the said defendant also cannot lay their claim to the office of Adhikari in future. 50. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the heirs of Goswami Sukumari Lal, however, urged that Goswami Sukumari Lal and thereafter his heirs, according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture, could continue as Adhikari as there was no such prohibition in the preliminary decree and at least he could hold the office to do Sewapuja of the deity. It is his submission that the preliminary decree permits such an arrangement to be made and that even in Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1996(1) SC 535 the Supreme Court made such observations. He also placed reliance upon the judgments of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court in Mohomad Ismail v. Ahmad Moolla Dawood, AIR 1916 PC 132, Sripati Prasad Ji v. Laxmi Das, AIR 1929 PC 27 and Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1996 (1) SC 516. 51. It needs to be mentioned that under the preliminary decree, defendant No. 1 Goswami Sukumari Lal was merely permitted to do Sewapuja and the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows : “The duties of a Shebait are of two kinds namely religious and secular. The religious duties consist of Sewapuja of the deity in the Nij Mandir. The secular duties consist of the management of the properties of an offerings and income received by the deity. It is the performance of secular duties which creates all difficulties because it is here that one has to deal with money. By removal of defendant No. 1 from the office of Shebaitship it is mainly intended to take away his right to manage the properties, incomes and offerings of the deity. The evidence does not show that the personal conduct of Gos. Sukumari Lal defendant No. 1 has not conformed to the tenets of Radha Vallabhiya Sampradaya. Hence it is not necessary to debar him from the performance of Sewapuja of the deity. I think it would be desirable to keep him associated with the Sewapuja of the deity so long as his profession and conduct conform to the tenets of the Sampradaya and the requisite standard of purity of body and behaviour. However, it also appears desirable that other Goswamis of Bilas Bans branch may be associated with this work of Sewapuja. The evidence indicates that there are some other Goswamis in this branch who are learned and held in great esteem by the followers of the Sampradaya. Their association with the performance of religious duties would, to my mind, be of great advantage in the management of daily Sewapuja and the religious functions of the endowment and would restore the due dignity of the temple. Their association with the performance of religious duties would, to my mind, be of great advantage in the management of daily Sewapuja and the religious functions of the endowment and would restore the due dignity of the temple. This will also lessen dependence on defendant No. 1 for the performance of Sewapuja of the deity. It may, however, he made clear that this performance of the religious duties will have to be under the overall supervision of the Committee to be set up to look after the secular affairs of the temple so that there may not be any discord in future. This object may be achieved by having some Goswamis of Bilas Bans branch on the Committee.” (emphasis supplied) 52. Such observations cannot be interpreted to mean that defendant No. 1, Goswami Sukumari Lal could still continue as a Adhikari. In fact, there was a specific observation in the judgment that Goswami Sukumari Lal deserves to be removed from the office of Adhikari and even the operative part of the judgment is as follows : “Gos. Sukumari Lal, defendant No. 1, is hereby removed from the office of the Shebait of the said deity and the temple and the management of all the properties of the deity during the turn of Bilas Bans branch. The management of the Sewapuja of the deity and the temple and the properties and income during the turn of Sewapuja of Bilas Bans branch shall vest in a Board of Trustees. This Board of Trustees shall be appointed and act in terms of a Scheme to be framed by this Court. The Board of Trustees shall be entitled to have possession of the deity and the temple and its properties from defendant No. 1 during the turn of Sewapuja of Bilas Bans branch.” 53. Likewise, the submission of Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel that after Goswami Sukumari Lal his heirs will hold the office of Adhikari according to rule of succession by lineal primogeniture cannot be accepted. This is clear from the relevant portion of the judgment which is as follows : “The plaintiffs have prayed for removal of defendants 1 to 4 from the Shebaitship. They have also prayed for removal of such other Goswamis as claim exclusive title in this temple or disown the temple to be a public temple, from the Shebaitship. This is clear from the relevant portion of the judgment which is as follows : “The plaintiffs have prayed for removal of defendants 1 to 4 from the Shebaitship. They have also prayed for removal of such other Goswamis as claim exclusive title in this temple or disown the temple to be a public temple, from the Shebaitship. I have held in a preceding finding that the Adhikari in the turn of Sewa of Bilas Bans branch succeeds according to the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture and Gos. Sukumari Lal defendant No. 1 is the present Adhikari. This finding negatives the claim of all other defendants and descendants of Gos. Bilas Dasji to the Shebaitship of the deity and the temple.” 54. In Sri Lakshamana Yatendrulu (supra), on which reliance has been placed by Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary learned Senior Counsel, the Supreme Court made the following observations : “Where a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of mathadhipati by reason of death or resignation or on account of his removal from office under Section 51 or otherwise, the person next entitled to succeed to the office of Mahant, according to the rules of succession laid down by the founder or where no such rule is laid down, according to the usage or custom as exists or according to the law of succession for the time being in force, shall, with the permission of the Commissioner, succeed to the office of mathadhipati.” 55. This decision does not help the said respondent in view of the specific finding in the preliminary decree that the heirs of Goswami Sukumari Lal will also not hold the office of Adhikari after him which finding has been confirmed by this Court in the First Appeal filed against the preliminary decree. 56. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the heirs of Goswami Sukumari Lal also contended that Goswami Sukumari Lal and after him his heirs could continue to hold the office of Adhikari to do the Sewapuja. 57. This contention of Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel cannot also be accepted. It needs to be emphasised that all that was permitted under the preliminary decree was that Goswami Sukumari Lal could be associated with the Sewapuja of the deity so long as his profession and conduct conforms to the tenets of the Sampradaya. 57. This contention of Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel cannot also be accepted. It needs to be emphasised that all that was permitted under the preliminary decree was that Goswami Sukumari Lal could be associated with the Sewapuja of the deity so long as his profession and conduct conforms to the tenets of the Sampradaya. The Court, however, further observed that the other Goswami’s of Bilas Bans Branch could also be associated with this work of Sewapuja as their association would restore the dignity of the temple. The Court, however, made it clear that the performance of the religious duties will have to be under the overall supervision of the Committee. This does not mean that for performance of this Sewapuja Goswami Sukumari Lal and thereafter his heirs should continue as Adhikaris. It is not necessary that the person doing the Sewapuja has necessarily to be a Adhikari. The decisions in Mohomad Ismail (supra), Sripati Prasad Ji (supra) and Pannalal Bansilal Pitti (supra) relied upon by Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel, therefore, do not help the said respondents. 58. The Court below, therefore, committed an illegality while framing a clause in the Scheme that defendant No. 1 could still continue as a Adhikari to do Sewapuja of the deity and that the succession to the office of Adhikari will be according to the rule of primogeniture in the family of defendant No. 1. The Scheme framed by the Court, therefore, deserves to be modified accordingly. 59. Learned Senior Counsel for the heirs of Goswami Sukumari Lal also placed great reliance upon the judgment rendered in Original Suit No. 9 of 1946. This suit was instituted in the year 1946 by Goswami Radha Ballabh denying the title of Goswami Roop Lal to act as Adhikari alleging that the office of Adhikari was elective and Goswami Roop Lal could not became Adhikari merely because he was the eldest son. The suit was filed as a representative suit on behalf of the descendants of Goswami Ban Chandra. The Court held that Adhikari was not appointed by election and the office devolved on the eldest son in the eldest male line of descent. The suit was filed as a representative suit on behalf of the descendants of Goswami Ban Chandra. The Court held that Adhikari was not appointed by election and the office devolved on the eldest son in the eldest male line of descent. This has been considered in the preliminary decree and indeed a finding has been recorded that the office of Adhikari devolved in accordance with the rule of succession by lineal primogeniture but as seen above, it has also been held that the Adhikari should be removed and heirs will also not hold the office of Adhikari. This judgment, therefore, does not help the defendant No. 1. 60. Sri S.V. Goswami learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the grant of 30% income of the deity to Goswami Sukumari Lal and his family members under the Scheme is contrary to the preliminary decree. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that payment of such an amount was necessary for their livelihood as they had no other source of income. 61. While deciding Issue No. 3 the Court had clearly observed that the removal of Goswami Sukumari Lal from the office of Adhikari will not mean any loss to him since he had not claimed any beneficial interest in the offerings made to the deity or in the usufruct of the Debuttar property. The Court further observed that though it had not come in evidence it may be that the Adhikari receives a share in the daily Bhog and Prasad offered to the deity but if that be so, necessary provision may be made for retaining the same practice at a reasonable scale provided Goswami Sukumari Lal makes such a claim and establishes it by satisfactory evidence at the time of framing of the Scheme. 62. It is, therefore, clear that Goswami Sukumari Lal had not claimed any beneficial interest in the offerings made to the deity or in the usufruct of the Debuttar property. The Court, therefore, while framing the Scheme committed an illegality in awarding 30% of the income of the deity to Goswami Sukumari Lal and his family members under Clause 27 of the Scheme. 63. The Court, therefore, while framing the Scheme committed an illegality in awarding 30% of the income of the deity to Goswami Sukumari Lal and his family members under Clause 27 of the Scheme. 63. Sri S.V. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that Clauses 28 and 30 of the Scheme which entitle the Adhikari to get the Poshaks of the deity after they are cast off from Sewapuja as well as the daily Prasad offered to the deity are not in conformity with the preliminary decree. He also submits that it was absolutely necessary for Goswami Sukumari Lal to establish by satisfactory evidence if such a practice was prevailing but since no evidence was led and it was not established, the Scheme could not have provided for such a benefit to them. 64. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel did not place any material before the Court to show that any evidence was led at the time of framing the Scheme to establish that such a practice was prevailing. The said contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, deserves to be accepted. 65. Sri S.V. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that Clauses 10 and 11 of the Scheme are not in conformity with the preliminary decree. In this connection he submitted that Goswami Sukumari Lal or the descendants of Rooplal could receive the offerings from their devotees and the followers who considered them to be their Guru’s from his private residence but not from any place within the temple premises. 66. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel, however, submitted that there is no infirmity in these Clauses of the Scheme since as a Guru he could receive the offerings in the temple premises from the devotees which offerings will obviously be his personal and exclusive property. 67. It is no doubt true that the Court had observed in the judgment that removal of Goswami Sukumari Lal from the office of Adhikari will not in any way affect his status as the Guru vis-a-vis the followers of Radha Ballabh Sampradaya and those who had been treating them as Guru would continue to do so but this should not empower Goswami Sukumari Lal or his descendants to receive the offerings from the devotees from within the premises of the temple. It needs to be mentioned that after the preliminary decree was passed, the Receiver had moved an application before the Court on 24th March, 1972 mentioning therein various difficulties and the Court had passed a detailed order on 12th August, 1972 directing the Receiver to take possession of the office used by Goswami Sukumari Lal since it was found from the reports of the Receiver that the presence of Goswami Sukumari Lal in the office was the root cause of all mischief. It was, accordingly, ordered that if Goswami Sukumari Lal was a Guru of some persons then he could carry out this part of his spiritual or religious functions at his house but not from the office in the Temple since he was misguiding the devotees who came to make offerings to the deity. In such circumstances any Clause in the Scheme permitting Goswami Sukumari Lal or the descendants to receive offerings within the temple premises from the devotees will not be for the benefit of the deity. The Scheme deserves to be modified accordingly. 68. In the end, Sri S.V. Goswami extraneously urged that if this Court was to form an opinion that the Scheme as framed under the final decree was not in conformity with the preliminary decree, then in such a situation this Court itself should modify the Scheme to the extent it was considered necessary but the matter may not be remanded to the Court below for framing a fresh Scheme as this will only delay the matter and already about 30 years have lapsed after the Scheme was framed by the Court below. This was not objected to by Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the heirs of Goswami Sukumari Lal. 69. Having considered the matter in its entirety and in view of the fact that much time has already lapsed after the preliminary decree and the final decree were passed, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interest of the Temple that the Scheme should be modified to the extent it is considered necessary in the light of the observations made above. I have, therefore, modified the Scheme which is enclosed in the Schedule to this judgment. 70. The First Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. I have, therefore, modified the Scheme which is enclosed in the Schedule to this judgment. 70. The First Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. The Scheme framed by the Court below stands modified by the Scheme contained in the Schedule to this judgment which shall form part of the judgment. SCHEDULE 1. There shall be the Board of Trustees to be named Sri Radha Ballabhji Maharaj Managing Committee, Vrindaban. The management during the term of Sewapuja of Sri Bilas Bans Branch of Sri Radha Ballabhji Maharaj, shall vest in this Committee. This Committee will have its office in the premises of the temple of Sri Radha Ballabhji Maharaj, Vrindaban. 2. All the movable and immovable properties of Sri Thakurji shall remain in the ownership and possession and under the control of the deity Sri Thakurji Maharaj. 3. The Committee shall have no power to alienate, sell or mortgage, in any way, the properties of Sri Thakurji. 4. The Committee shall have no power to grant any lease or demise any premises or let out on rent any premises of Thakurji without the prior approval of the District Judge, Mathura. 5. The Committee shall keep an up-to-date list of movable and immovable properties of Sri Thakurji. In case of jewellery, full description and the weight etc. alongwith their estimated value, should be also mentioned in the register meant for keeping the details of the properties of Sri Thakurji. 6. The Committee will maintain Proceedings Books, Stock Register, Account Books and Register of the employees. 7. The Committee shall consist of twelve members. The coram for holding the meeting shall be complete only when ten members of the Committee including the President or Vice-President are present. 8. The term of the Committee shall be 5 years from the date of assuming the office. After expiry of 5 years, a new elected Committee shall assume the charge of management in accordance with this scheme. 9. The election of the members of the Committee shall take place under the supervision of the District Judge, Mathura, who will depute some senior Civil Judicial Officers to supervise the election to be held in the premises of this temple in Vrindaban, after due publicity. Each member shall have a single non-transferable right to vote. The election will take place by secret voting. 10. No female shall be eligible as member of the Committee. Each member shall have a single non-transferable right to vote. The election will take place by secret voting. 10. No female shall be eligible as member of the Committee. Only male members who have attained the age of 21 years, shall be eligible to be members of the Committee. 11. The following persons cannot be members of the Committee : (a) Any person having no faith in the Radha Vallabhiya Sampradaya as prescribed by Sri Hit Haribanshji Maharaj; (b) A lunatic or a person of unsound mind; (c) Person convicted for moral turpitude; (d) An insolvent; (e) Any person suffering from leprosy; (f) Servant of this temple; (g) Legal practitioner appearing in any suit or case against the said Thakurji. 12. The following persons shall have the right to vote for election of the members of the Committee : (a) The male members not below the age of 21 years of the families of Bilas Bans Branch and Rash Bans Branch. (b) Any other male devotee not below the age of 21 years of this Sampradaya who enrolls himself as member, after depositing the prescribed fee of Rs. 1001/- provided his enrollment has taken place one month before the date of election. 13. Goswami Radesh Lal, respondent No. 1/1 and thereafter the heirs, according to the rule of primogeniture from amongst the family members of Roop Lal of Bilas Bans Branch, will be associated with the Sewapuja of the deity along with the other Goswamis of Bilas Bans Branch in accordance with the established custom of Radha Ballabhiya Sampradaya. This will be done under the overall supervision of the Committee. 14. Respondent No. 1/1 or such descendants of Roop Lal who are associated with the Sewapuja shall be entitled to receive the offerings from their devotees and followers who consider respondent No. 1/1, and such successors, as Guru and such offerings shall be their personal and exclusive property but they shall not receive any such offerings in the temple premises from their devotees and followers. 15. The offerings made by the devotees to the deity Sri Thakurji, shall be the property of the deity. 16. The Committee shall have its President, Vice-President and Secretary. 17. The President, Vice-President and the Secretary shall be elected by the members of the Committee by majority votes. The President and Vice-President shall be elected from amongst the members of the elected Committee. 16. The Committee shall have its President, Vice-President and Secretary. 17. The President, Vice-President and the Secretary shall be elected by the members of the Committee by majority votes. The President and Vice-President shall be elected from amongst the members of the elected Committee. The Secretary shall be elected from the male adult members of the families of Bilas Bans Branch. The Secretary shall be an educated person preferably a graduate having some legal experience but he shall have no right to vote in the resolutions of the Committee. 18. The Committee shall meet at least once during the turn of Sewapuja of Bilas Bans Branch in the premises of this temple in Vrindaban and maintain the proceedings in the Proceedings Book kept by the Committee. The Committee shall also hold at least one meeting during the turn of Ras Bans Branch. The meetings of the Committee shall be presided by the President and in his absence by the Vice-President. 19. The Committee shall pass the budget for the expenses of Sri Thakurji and submit the same for approval to the District Judge, Mathura. 20. The accounts kept by the Committee shall be annually audited by the Chartered Accountant on payment of requisite fee by the Committee out of the income of the temple, and its report be submitted to the District Judge, Mathura for perusal. 21. The Committee shall be entitled to keep staff for the administration of the temple on reasonable salaries to be approved by the District Judge, Mathura. 22. The Committee shall be competent to make rules and regulations, subject to the approval of the District Judge, Mathura for the efficient management and administration of the day to day working of the temple. 23. In case of any civil suit, criminal case or any other legal proceeding, the deity shall be represented by the said committee in Court of law, or before any tribunal constituted by any law. 24. The Annual Savings from the income of the deity shall be kept in Fixed Deposits in State Bank of India at Mathura or Vrindaban Branch in the name of the deity. Besides this some running amount may be kept in the Savings Bank to meet the emergent expenses of the temple. This account will be jointly operated by the President and the Secretary. Besides this some running amount may be kept in the Savings Bank to meet the emergent expenses of the temple. This account will be jointly operated by the President and the Secretary. The withdrawals can only be made by them after necessary sanction is obtained from the District Judge, Mathura. 25. After 7 years of the working of this Scheme for Sewapuja during the turn of Bilas Bans Branch, the District Judge may consider the feasibility of having a unified management for the temple for the whole year. 26. If any member of the Committee does not attend three consecutive meetings of the Committee, he shall be removed from the membership of the Committee by the order of the District Judge, Mathura. In case of death or voluntarily retirement or removal of any member of the Committee by the District Judge, the District Judge shall have the power to nominate his substitute from the panel of names suggested by the Committee by majority votes for the remaining term till the next elected Committee comes into power. 27. The posts of President, Vice-President and Secretary shall be honorary. The members of the Committee attending the meetings of the Committee, shall not be entitled to get any T.A. and D.A. However, they can be entertained by ‘Prasad’ and ‘Bhog’ offered to the deity. 28. The Committee can authorise the Secretary to keep regular accounts of the temple regarding the offerings income and expenses, to make collections, to look after the necessary arrangement regarding the ‘Darshan’ of the devotees, supervise the work of the paid staff and to carry such other orders passed by the Committee from time to time. 29. The Committee can always approach the District Judge, Mathura for seeking guidance in day to day working of the management of the temple. The District Judge, Mathura can make additions, alterations and deletions in this Scheme, as may be considered necessary for the efficient management of the temple, subject to the directions and observations made by the District Judge, Mathura in the preliminary decree. 30. The first election of the Committee shall take place preferably in the last week of January, 2009 so that the Committee takes charge of management by 1st February, 2009. Till the elected Committee takes charge, the Receiver already appointed by the Court, shall continue with the management. 30. The first election of the Committee shall take place preferably in the last week of January, 2009 so that the Committee takes charge of management by 1st February, 2009. Till the elected Committee takes charge, the Receiver already appointed by the Court, shall continue with the management. The persons qualified to vote at this election should be duly registered latest by 20th December, 2008. ————