JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bali, District - Pali (Camp Desuri) ('the first appellate court'), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-Mangi Lal against the judgment & decree dated 05.07.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Desuri, District - Pali ('the trial court'), has been allowed and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and accounts on 10.12.2001 against the appellant, his real brother with the averments that their aunt (Bhua) Ansi Bai took Samadhi and the said place, where she took Samadhi is situated at Village - Nadol and known as Ansi Bai Samadhi Sthal. After Samadhi was taken by Ansi Bai, grand-father of the parties Shri Tuaramji started doing Pooja-Archana and used to receive the Chadawa, which was used for maintaining the family and for development of the Samadhi Sthal, after his death, his son/father of the parties Kasaramji started doing the Pooja-Archana and management of the Samadhi Sthal and used the Chadawa for maintenance of the Samadhi Sthal and his family. The plaintiff and defendant are two sons of Kasaramji, who on account of his old age in the year 1987 handed over the work of Pooja-Archana and maintenance as Poojari to both of them as his successors and since then both were undertaking the said Pooja-Archana jointly and after distributing the income from the Samadhi among themselves were maintaining their families. 3. It was then submitted that with the passage of time, income of the Samadhi Sthal started increasing, where after the defendant with an intension to grab the entire income in September, 1997 turned the plaintiff out and has deprived him from doing Pooja-Archana and getting the amount of Chadawa, regarding which, FIR was lodged, cognizance was taken and the case was pending. Based on the said averments, relief was sought for declaration that the plaintiff and defendant were entitled to 50% share each in the income/Chadawa of the Temple of the Samadhi Sthal and for doing the Pooja-Archana and management of the Temple of the Samadhi as Poojari; further injunction was sought from interference and for fixing the turn of the parties; further relief was sought seeking accounts for the period, the plaintiff remained deprived of the Pooja-Archana and the amount of Chadawa. The suit was amended and a plea was taken that on account of the custom, the plaintiff was entitled to do the Pooja-Archana. 4. A written statement was filed by the appellant-defendant indicating that after Samadhi was taken by Ansi Bai, its Pooja-Archana etc. was being done by Tuaramji, where after in 1982, the defendant came on Samadhi as a Poojari and started doing Poojapath and Archana. It was denied that from the receipts of Poojapath and Chadawa, the family of Tuaramji was maintained. It was claimed that Tuaramji had independent income. It was claimed that one Ansi Bai Seva Samiti was formed comprising of amount 70 persons of Meghwal Samaj from 8 Districts under whose supervision, the Temple was renovated, Dharmshala was constructed and various developments were undertaken and the amount of Pooja-Archana and Bhent receipt is being used for the said purpose; the income from the Samadhi has never been a source for maintenance of the family. It was claimed that the defendant has been appointed by the Ansi Bai Seva Samiti as Poojari. It was claimed that the property is not personal property of Kasaramji, but is a public religious place, which cannot be partitioned and there was no legal basis for filing of the suit, denied all the averments regarding plaintiff having been dispossessed form the work of Pooja-Archana etc. were denied and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. The trial court framed 9 issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses including father PW-2 Kasaramji were examined and three documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were produced and eleven documents were exhibited. 6. were denied and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 5. The trial court framed 9 issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses including father PW-2 Kasaramji were examined and three documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were produced and eleven documents were exhibited. 6. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that based on the custom of Meghwal Samaj, plaintiff and defendant were undertaken Pooja-Archana and were maintaining their family; as the defendant has been acquitted in the criminal case, it was not proved that the plaintiff was turned out from doing the Seva-Pooja; it was not proved that the plaintiff has from before 1999 had received any share from the Temple Chadawa and as plaintiff has accepted that Temple is not their property (Jagiri), the issues were decided against the plaintiff. Based on the said findings, the suit was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-plaintiff filed first appeal. Based on the said findings, the suit was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent-plaintiff filed first appeal. The first appellate court after hearing the parties, inter alia, came to the following conclusion:- ^^12 & vc tgka rd bl izdj.k dk iz'u gS] oknh ds }kjk lek/kh ds le; ls Vqvkjketh] muds iq= dlkjketh vkSj mudh o`)koLFkk ds ckcr nksuksa HkkbZ;ksa dks crkSj iqtkjh iwtk djus ds dFkuksa ds foijhr izfroknh us Vqvkjketh] dlkjketh vkSj lu~ 1982 esa v.klhckbZ lsok lfefr vkSj nwljh vkSj v.klhckbZ ds }kjk Kku izkIr gksus ls mlds }kjk iwtk djus dh ckr dgh gS] ijUrq mlds }kjk bu nksuks rF;ksa ds ckcr dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s x;s gSA tcfd blds foijhr xokg ih0Mh0 2 dlkjke] ftldk Vqvkjke ds i'pkr~ iwtk vtZuk djus dh ckr Lohd`r rF; gS] vihykFkhZ o izR;FkhZ dk firk gS vkSj Lo;a izfroknh mlds ,d c;ku izn'kZ ,01 ds :i esa iznf'kZr djok;k esa Hkh mlus bUgha rF;ksa dks nksgjk;k gSA izfroknh ;fn ;g dgrk gS fd mldks lfefr ds }kjk vf/kdkj lkSaik x;k] ijUrq lfefr dk xBu jftLVªs'ku vkSj mldk fo/kku 2003&04 esa cuus dh ckr mlus Lohdkj dh gS vkSj mldh izfr is'k djuk Hkh dgk gSA lfefr dks iqtkjh fu;qfDr dk vf/kdkj gks] ds ckcr dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gSA lu~ 1982 esa lfefr us crkSj iqtkjh izR;FkhZ@izfroknh dks fu;qDr fd;k gks] dk dksbZ rF; i=koyh ij ekStwn ugha gSA tgka rd flfoy ekeyksa dk iz'u gS] rF;ksa dh miyC/krk vFkkZr~ fizikSaM+jsUl vkWQ izkscSfcfyVh ds vk/kkj ij fu'p; fd;k tkuk gksrk gS vkSj oknh vkSj izfroknh dh lk{; ls rFkk Lo;a izfroknh dh LohdkjksfDr ls Vqvkjke ds oa'ktksa }kjk v.klhckbZ lek/khLFky ;kfu fookfnr LFky dh iwtk djrs vkuk ,d Lohd`r rF; gSA** fookfnr LFky dh iwtk djrs vkuk ,d Lohd`r rF; gSA 14 & mDr rudh ds vuq:i gh tgka eafnj dks p<+us okyk iqtkik tks iqtkjh dk gh gksxk] bl lanHkZ esa oknh ds }kjk 1996 dh izk.k izfr"Bk esa Hkh ;g vf/kdkj mUgsa fufgr djus dh tks ckr dgh xbZ gS] ;g vf/kdkj oa'kkuqxr :i esa eafnj dks lsok djus okys lsok/kkjh] lsok;r] iqtkjh vkSj vpZd dks iwtk ds lkFk izkIr gksus okyk vf/kdkj gS rFkk bl vf/kdkj ds rgr fuf'pr rkSj ij iqtkjh eafnj dk p<+kok izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU;Fkk :i esa gksus okys nku vkfn ds lEcU/k esa iqtkjh dk vf/kdkj ugha gksrk gSA tgka rd desVh dk iz'u gS] fuf'pr rkSj ij eafnj dk fodkl vkfn ds dk;Z ds lEcU/k esa muds }kjk fd, tkus okys fØ;k dyki vkSj ,df=r pans vkfn ds lEcU/k esa iqtkjh dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gksuk ,d oS/kkfud rF; gSA vr% rudh la0 3 Hkh bl izdkj fd fookfnr eafnj esa ewfrZ&lek/kh ij p<+us okys leLr p<+kos ds ckcr iqtkjh] tks ftl Hkh la[;k esa jgsaxsa] cjkcj ds vf/kdkjh gksaxs] dk rF; oknh ds i{k esa lkfcr ik;k tkrk gSA vr% rudh la0 1 o 3 mijksDrkuqlkj oknh ds i{k esa r; dh tkrh gSA 8. The first appellate court also came to the conclusion that merely because the defendant was acquitted by the criminal court, the evidence of PW-2 father Kasaramji and his statement produced by defendant as Ex.-A-1 were sufficient to prove that the plaintiff was turned out from Seva-Pooja and the receipt of the Chadawa/management in the year 1999. The issue regarding claim made by the plaintiff pertaining to accounts/Chadawa since the year 1999 on account of the nature of evidence, which came on record, was held against the plaintiff. The plea raised by the defendant regarding his appointment by Ansi Bai Seva Samiti as Poojari was negated and ultimately the following decree was passed:- ^^1 & fd fookfnr eafnj esa Vqvkjke ds oa'ktksa dk crkSj iqtkjh oa'kkuqxr vf/kdkj gksdj vihykFkhZ@oknh vkSj izR;FkhZ@izfroknh dk iwtk vpZuk vkSj ewfrZ dks vfiZr gksus okys p<+kos ij ckjh ds vuqlkj cjkcj dk vkSj iwjk vf/kdkj gksus dh ?kks"k.kk dh tkrh gSA nksuksa i{kdkjku izR;sd o"kZ dh ckjh r; djsaxs vkSj ckjh ds vuqlkj p<+kok vkfn izkIr djus esa ,d nwljs ds vf/kdkj esa dksbZ n[kyankth ugha djsaxs] ds ckcr mUgsa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn fd;k tkrk gSA** 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the first appellate court committed error in reversing the findings recorded by the trial court. It was submitted that there was no evidence available on record to prove the custom and the custom claimed by the plaintiff regarding the right to do the Seva-Pooja was not proved in terms of Section 13 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and, therefore, the first appellate court was not justified in accepting the appeal. 10. Further submissions were made that the plaintiff had failed to establish issues No.1, 3 and 7 as framed by the trial court, wherein he was required to establish the custom, right to receipt Bhent/Chadawa and maintainability of the suit during the life-time of their father Kasaramji and on that count also, the order passed by the first appellate court deserves to be set aside. 11. It was emphasized that the first appellate court without meeting with the reasoning of the trial court has reversed the findings by its impugned judgment, which cannot be sustained on any count. 12. 11. It was emphasized that the first appellate court without meeting with the reasoning of the trial court has reversed the findings by its impugned judgment, which cannot be sustained on any count. 12. Submissions were made that substantial questions of law does arise in the present appeal and, therefore, the same may be framed and the appeal be admitted and decided on the said questions. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the judgment of the first appellate court. It was submitted that the trial court dealt with the matter in a most cursory manner and the documents available on record were wrongly interpreted and the first appellate court after thoroughly discussing the issues and the material available on record, has by cogent reasons reversed the findings recorded by the trial court and, therefore, the said judgment does not call for any interference. It was submitted that the findings recorded by the first appellate court are findings of fact and the same does not call for any interference in second appeal and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 15. The trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not produced any material, whereby he has been appointed as Poojari and/or the Meghwal Samaj or Ansi Bai Seva Samiti has accepted him as Poojari and as he has accepted that the Temple was not owned by the parties (not their tkxhjh ), he had no right and, consequently, dismissed the suit. 16. A bare look at the material, which has come on record, and the findings recorded by the first appellate court, it is apparent that Ansi Bai was aunt (Bhua) of the parties, after she took Samadhi, the place (Samadhi) was being looked after by Tuaramji, grand-father of the parties and, thereafter by Kasaramji, father of the parties and Kasaramji, who appeared in the witness-box as PW-2 specifically asserted that he was looking after the Samadhi/Temple and used to receive the Chadawa etc. and on account of his old age required his sons to do the work of Seva-Pooja/maintenance of Samadhi/Temple. There is no reason to disbelieve the said statement of Kasaramji. and on account of his old age required his sons to do the work of Seva-Pooja/maintenance of Samadhi/Temple. There is no reason to disbelieve the said statement of Kasaramji. Further, the defence raised by the appellant that he was appointed by Ansi Bai Seva Samiti and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to do the Seva-Pooja etc., the said plea including the right of the Seva Samiti to appoint Poojari raised by the appellant was not supported by any material whatsoever. 17. The fact that the Seva-Pooja at the Samadhi was being undertaken since it came into existence by the same family i.e. by Tuaramji, Kasaramji and thereafter by plaintiff and defendant, having been well established from the material available on record, there was in fact no requirement whatsoever to even plead or prove custom in this regard and, therefore, the plea raised regarding the plaintiff not being able to establish the custom is baseless, inasmuch as, the facts alleged have been firmly established as the most important link i.e. Kasaramji, who is father of the parties has specifically proved the said aspect and there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve his statement. 18. The mere fact that the plaintiff stated that property in question did not belong to him/to the parties (not their Tkkxhjh ) by itself cannot take away the status of the plaintiff or negate the claim of the plaintiff as Poojari and consequences of being such Poojari and, therefore, the over-emphasis placed by the trial court on the said aspect/statement has led to its coming to an apparently incorrect conclusion. The first appellate court has thoroughly dealt with the matter and has essentially recording findings of fact, which cannot be made subject matter of a second appeal. 19. In view of the above discussion, no substantial question of law arise for consideration of this Court. 20. Consequently, the appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.