JUDGMENT D.Ramesh, J. - Heard Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, senior counsel appearing for Sri P.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the appellant and of Sri T.Laxmi Narayana, counsel appearing for Sri Dorai Raj, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant herein is plaintiff-Mutt filed the present appeal, aggrieved by the decree and judgment in O.S.No.439 of 2005 dated 10.04.2012 passed by the additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. 3. For sake of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to be as plaintiff and the respondents herein referred to be as defendants. The brief facts of the case and observations of the court below are as follows: 4. The plaintiff is a Mutt. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of plaint schedule properties 'a' and 'B' as they are the absolute properties of the plaintiff-Mutt and for granting permanent injunction, restraining the defendants not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. 5. The case of the plaintiff is that- Uttaradhi Srivaishnava Mutt popularly known as Moola Mutt has been in existence for the past 100 years in Tirumala. Mutt was started with an intention to meet the needs of Vaishnava cult. The idols of Lord Srirama, Lord Seetha, Lord Lakshmana and Lord anjaneya were consecrated in the said Mutt and that Nithya Deepa, Naivedya aradhana are being performed to the deities. The pilgrims visited Tirumala would necessarily come to the Moola Mutt and worship deities and the Mutt is also providing free meals and free accommodation to the pilgrims and Sadhus. One Poojari, five Sadhus and five attenders are permanently staying in the Moola Mutt to look after the affairs. The founder of the Mutt his Holiness Mahant Ramnarayanacharya Swamiji strived for development. In the year 1912, two properties were gifted by Jagannadha Ramanujadass under gift deeds dated 07-03-1912 and 17-03-1912 and third property was gifted by Sri Rama Swaroop agarwal under gift deed dated 12-02-1912. 6. In the year 1925, Swamiji Ramnarayanacharyaji as grantor executed a deed on 10-12-1925 and settled the above properties to the Swamiji Badri Papannacharyaji as successor to the trust and carry on the object of Moola Mutt, he was possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1957, the said Swami Badri prapannacharyaji executed a Will on 4-7-1957 appointing Swamiji Harivamshacharya as his lawful descendant and owner of the movable and immovable properties under his control. In the year 1957, the said Swami Badri prapannacharyaji executed a Will on 4-7-1957 appointing Swamiji Harivamshacharya as his lawful descendant and owner of the movable and immovable properties under his control. Sri Swamiji Badri Prapapnnacharya died on 02-08-1957 since then Swamiji Harivamshacahariji being the legal successor took possession of the Mutt properties and he is exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same. 7. Subsequently, some of the properties were acquired by the Land acquisition Officer of Tirumala Tirupati Deasthanams for widening of the roads in Mada Streets, Tirumala and other purposes and that the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam given 'a' and 'B' schedule properties on 15.03.1999 and on 19-10-2004. With the approval of the competent authority of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam said Moola Mutt was constructed and idols of Lord Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy, Lord Srirama, Lord Seetha, Lord Lakshmana and Lord anjaneya were reinstalled by conducting religious rites and also constructed rooms with the donations of devotees. Sundareswar acharya was the General Power of attorney holder of the Mutt and his name was mentioned in the electricity bills and that the bills are being paid towards Mutt. 8. While that being position, the 1st defendant has appointed the 2nd defendant as a new Manager and in charge of the Moola - Mutt in place of existing General Power of attorney of the plaintiff on 11-08-2005 with malafide intention to harass the plaintiff. another letter was issued by the 1st defendant to the Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam stating that the Government of Madhya Pradesh superseded the Managing Committee of Lakshman Bagh Sansthan, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh and removed Sri Harivamshacharya from the post of Mahanth of Lakshman Bagh Sansthan, Rewa. The District Collector, Rewa appointed as administrator of Lakshman Bagh Sansthan, Rewa including the Moola Mutt, Tirumala. 9. The plaintiff/appellant herein has submitted reply to the letter sent by District Collector, Rewa dated 27.10.2005 stating that the plaintiff Mutt, is not vested with the Lakshman Bagh Sansthan, Rewa and that the defendants have no right over the said properties. Even according to the agreement entered between the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and the committee constituted under the State Government, the properties and group temples under the management and control of the committee was clearly specified. The properties gifted to the plaintiff's Mutt are not covered by the said agreement. 10. Even according to the agreement entered between the State Government of Madhya Pradesh and the committee constituted under the State Government, the properties and group temples under the management and control of the committee was clearly specified. The properties gifted to the plaintiff's Mutt are not covered by the said agreement. 10. The second defendant under the guise of the orders dated 27.05.2005 interfering with the activities of the plaintiff/appellant influencing the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam officials and revenue officials of Chittoor, so also requesting help of the local police officers to take possession of the plaint schedule properties. When they made attempts to dispossess and to take possession of the schedule properties on 06-11-2005 at about 10-00 a.m. by the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff resisted their acts. Hence, the plaintiff prayed to grant permanent injunction against the defendants. 11. Refuting the said averments, the defendants have filed their written statement. according to the written statement, said Moola Mutt in Tirumala has been in existence for the past several years to meet the needs of Uttaradi Srivaishnava devotees come from North India. The plaintiff -Mutt is part and parcel of parental Mutt by name Lakshman Bagh Sansthan with the head quarters of Rewa in Madhya Pradesh. In view of the document executed on 10.12.1925 by Sri Ramnarayanacharyaji in favour of the Badriprapanna charyaji to succeed Mahanthship to manage the properties clearly shows that the Management of properties were entrusted and not as the personal properties of any of them. Badri Prapannacharyaji succeeded by Swami Janardhanacharyaji and executed a Will dated 4-7-1957 by naming his successor Harivamshacharya who became the Mahanth against the custom, usage and tradition of succession to the Mahanthship and the said Will is only valid to the extent of power nomination of Harivamshacharya by Sri Badrapapannacharyaji and cannot effect the title of the properties mentioned in the will. 12. Rewa was princely State of Central India. From times immemorial Lakshmanji was being worshiped as God in that region. a temple of Lakshmanji was built in Rewa by the then Maharaja Viswanath Singh and the place was named as Lakshmanbagh. The successor, Maharaja Raghurajsingh dedicated certain villages and huge properties to Lakshmanbagh and his Rajaguru Swamy Mukundacharya was installed as head of that institution. From times immemorial Lakshmanji was being worshiped as God in that region. a temple of Lakshmanji was built in Rewa by the then Maharaja Viswanath Singh and the place was named as Lakshmanbagh. The successor, Maharaja Raghurajsingh dedicated certain villages and huge properties to Lakshmanbagh and his Rajaguru Swamy Mukundacharya was installed as head of that institution. He was the first spiritual Guru of Lakshmanbagh, after the death of Swamy Mukundacharya, Sri Lakshmipapanna charya succeeded him; Swamy Lakshmipapanna charya was removed from his office for some time by the Ruler and again reinstated by the Ruler Maharaja Gulab Singh on 6-7-1945 on condition that he would manage the institution properly and shall have right to appoint another manager with the consultation of the Minister-in-charge. Thereafter he has executed a Will on 4-7-1957 nominating Harivamshacharya as successor and died on 2-8-1957. In the year 1920, the Management of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan was in the hands of committee appointed by Darbar. Swamy Badrapapannacharyaji was one of its members. Subsequently agreement dated 30-3-1954 arrived between the President of India and Chairman and members of the Committee. after the death of Badriprapannacharyaji the state Government of Mahdya Pradesh appointed Swamy Raghavacharya as Mahanth of Lakshmanbagh vide orders dated 20.10.1958. The said appointment was challenged by Harivamshacharya asserting his rights styling himself as Mahanth of Samsthan and challenged the power of State Government to appoint Mahanth. The trial court dismissed the said suit, on the file of the I additinal District Judge, Rewa and numbered as Civil Suit No.7a/1971 holding that Harivamshacharya is a family man and not a Virkth and celibate, which is pre-requirement to become as Mahanth of Samsthan. Harivamshacharyaji aggrieved by the judgment, filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and the same was numbered as appeal No.260/1973 filed against the Judgment in Civil Suit No.7a/1971, which was dismissed with clear observation that he was not eligible to appoint as Head of the Samsthan. Consequently his claim for Mahanthship was denied to him. The committee appointed by the State Government, in which the Mahanth of Lakshmanbagh is a member is only entitled to manage the temple/Mutt and their properties with the help of members of the committee and not otherwise. 13. Consequently his claim for Mahanthship was denied to him. The committee appointed by the State Government, in which the Mahanth of Lakshmanbagh is a member is only entitled to manage the temple/Mutt and their properties with the help of members of the committee and not otherwise. 13. The Madhya Pradesh Government Dharmik Nyaya and Dharmaseva Department in proceedings No.F.7/50/2000/DHHa the said Harivamshacharyaji was removed from Mahanthship of Lakshmanbagh, dated 27.01.2005, on that the Collector, Rewa addressed a letter to Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government, who is the 1st defendant, for take over the charge of Lakshmanbagh Sansthan, which is under the custody of Madhya Pradesh Government. 14. In view of the said proceedings, the plaintiff is not a Mahanth, he is only a care taker of Samsthan appointed by Harivamshacharyaji, and said Harivamshacharya was removed by both Judicial pronouncement and the State Endowment Department, his General Power of attorney came to an end by removal of Harivamshacharya and that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit. 15. as the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property only as care taker of Samsthan, appointed by Harivamshacharyaji, who is removed for misfeasance and the other allegation that the suit properties are not covered by the agreement dated 30-3-1954, and that the defendants are influencing revenue officials as well as police officials, to take over the possession and control of the Mutt is denied. action taken by the defendant is under the authority given by the statutory body and Government control. The plaintiff is in illegal occupation, ever since the removal of Harivamshacharya as a Mahanth of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, under his G.P.a. the plaintiff cannot resist the claim of the defendants. Hence, requested to dismiss the suit with the above pleadings. 16. In support of the pleadings, Exs.a1 to a18 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant, Exs.B1 to Ex.B31 were marked on behalf of the defendants. 17. Basing on the above pleadings, learned judge in the court below has framed the following issues: 1. 'Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint 'a' and 'B' schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? 3. Whether the suit is maintainable without notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C.? 4. 'Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint 'a' and 'B' schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? 3. Whether the suit is maintainable without notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C.? 4. Whether this court has got jurisdiction to decide the plaintiff's claim for Mahanthship? 5. Whether this court has got pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 6. To what relief?' 18. While considering the issue No.1, the court below strangely held that the plaint-Mutt is a part of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, by taking contents of Para No.11 of the plaint that the plaintiff is in possession and control of various other Mutt and properties spread in other parts of India and also holding the post of Mahanth of Lakshmanbagh Sansthan, Rewa District, Madhya Pradesh. Hence, said plea clearly and clinchingly goes to show that the Mahanth appointed to Lakshman Bagh Sansthan, Rewa District, Madhya Pradesh is also Mahanth of the plaintiff Mutt. If really the plaintiff Mutt is an independent Mutt, the averments made in part No.11 of the plaint, is not correct. Further by taking Ex.a1, dated 07.12.1925, executed by Sri Mahanth Ramnarayanacharya swamy in favour of Badrapapannacharya Swamy of Lakshmanbagh Rewa, in respect of the properties situated at Mohanbagh in Badrinarayana Mountains, Gadawala District at Joshi Mutt, Podhi Taluk, so also the properties mentioned in para 4 of the plaint. If really the plaintiff's Mutt is an independent Mutt there is no possibility of reference of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan and also the properties situated outside of State of Madhya Pradesh. Further, the grantor under Ex.a1, gave right to the Badriprapapanna Swamiji as Mahanth of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, declared that the plaintiff-Mutt is not an independent Mutt. 19. Further the court below observed that the contention of the defendants that Raja guru Mukundacharya was installed as Head of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan. after the death of Swamy Mukundacharya, Sri Lakshmiprpapanna charya succeeded him. Subsequently, on his death, Swami Janardhana Charya and thereafter Swami Badraprapanna charya were succeeded. Thereafter PW.1/Harivamshacharya was appointed as Mahanth. Said appointment has to be ratified by the Maharaja or concerned Department of the State Government. as admitted by PW.1 in his cross-examination, about the construction of temple by Maharaja Viswanath Singh and Swamy Mukundacharya was the Raja guru of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan. Lakshmi Papannacharya succeeded Mukundacharya. Thereafter PW.1/Harivamshacharya was appointed as Mahanth. Said appointment has to be ratified by the Maharaja or concerned Department of the State Government. as admitted by PW.1 in his cross-examination, about the construction of temple by Maharaja Viswanath Singh and Swamy Mukundacharya was the Raja guru of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan. Lakshmi Papannacharya succeeded Mukundacharya. Swami Janardhanacharya was succeeded and thereafter, Badrapapanna charya succeeded Janardhanacharya. Further PW.2/Madhava Das admitted that under Ex.a2, he was appointed as successor of Mahanthship Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, is subject to approval of Maharaja. But Maharaja was not approved the Mahanthship of PW.1. Hence, he is not a Mahanth of Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan. 20. Further the court observed that if the plaintiff Mutt is an independent Mutt, it has to be registered under a.P.Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987 (act 30 of 1987), Section 6 of the said act states about the preparation and publication of list of Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments on the basis of income. Clause-D shows with regard to the Mutts irrespective of income. admittedly the plaintiff's Mutt is not registered under the said act, if it is independent Mutt, it ought to have registered as per section 6 of the act 30 of 1987 or section 49 of the old act. 21.. as per Section 49 of the act 30 of 1987, Muttadipathi of every Mutt shall submit to the commissioner within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of this act or the date of founding of such Mutt, proposal for fixation of Dittam in the Mutt. But no proposal was sent either by PW.1 or his predecessor Mahanth under act 30 of 1987 or old act. Therefore, it can be said that the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's Mutt is an independent Mutt and not relates to the Lakshmanbagh Samsthan is not correct. 22. It is contended by the plaintiff that Mutt was not shown as Ex.a3 and Ex.B9/agreement between the Lakshmanbagh Samsthan and the committee of Government. The admissions made by DW. 2 and DW.3 show that the plaintiff Mutt was not shown in Ex.B9/agreement. Therefore, Lakshmanbagh Samsthan has no relationship with plaintiff's Mutt. Once, the admission is made, it has to be considered. The admissions made by DW. 2 and DW.3 show that the plaintiff Mutt was not shown in Ex.B9/agreement. Therefore, Lakshmanbagh Samsthan has no relationship with plaintiff's Mutt. Once, the admission is made, it has to be considered. Considering the said submissions, Ex.a3 and a9, the two documents are one and the same i.e., agreement dated 30.03.1954 between President of India on one part and the statement of members of the committee constituted by State Government to Manage the properties and affairs of the Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, in which it is mentioned about the properties of temples within the state and out of state of Madhya Pradesh. Ex.B-9 does not cover Moola Mutt. as per the documents filed by the defendants there is an understanding that some of the Mutts and temples have to be maintained by Swamiji Mahanth, which were not covered by Ex.B9, it is evidenced by Ex.B12 about the list of the properties received by Sri Swamiji Maharaja in Chadhotri. Sl.No.6 relates to Moola Mutt i.e., plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.B10, letter addressed by the Collector, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh to inspect the Dharmastan Lakshmanbagh outside of the state and their properties. 23. as per Ex.a16 shows hat Chaturbujacharya, Manager of Moola Mutt died on 28.04.2001 and in his place Sri Lakshmana charya was appointed as sole Manager to look after the affairs of Moola Mutt by Sri Swami Maharaja, Lakshmanbagh, and Rewa. Ex.B20 shows about the orders passed Mahdya Pradesh Dharmika Nyas and Dharma Sheva Department, Manthralaya, Bhopal in January, 2005 shows that the Collector Rewa, an enquiry was ordered on the complaints received against PW.1. The Collector, Rewa also took possession of the charge of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa administration on 27.01.2005 after noon. It is evidenced by Ex.B21. In pursuance of the taking of the administration of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan by the District Collect and District Magistrate, Rewa, a letter was addressed under Ex.B23 to the District Collector, Chittoor to provide police assistance to Srinivasa Sukla i.e. DW-3 who was appointed under Ex.B19 to take possession of the plaintiff's Mutt. 24. Considering the above contentions, the issue was answered against the plaintiff and other issues, issue No.2 to 6 have taken for consideration and decided jointly as single issue. 25. 24. Considering the above contentions, the issue was answered against the plaintiff and other issues, issue No.2 to 6 have taken for consideration and decided jointly as single issue. 25. The court below further observed that by taking the observations passed by the II additional District Court, Rewa in Civil suit No.7a/1971 that PW.1 is not entitled to appoint as Mahanth, an enquiry was also conducted for the allegations levelled against PW.1 by the District Magistrate, Rewa. Suppressing all these effects, the plaintiff filed this suit as if the plaintiff's Mutt is an independent Mutt and it is no way connected to Lakshmanbagh Samsthan for declaration of right and title and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Hence, the person, who comes the court, shall come with clean hands and true facts and PW.1 filed this suit by suppressing the material facts. 26. Considering the evidence of PWs.2 to 5, no prudence can be given to his testimony, therefore, the plaintiffs, no prudence to be given to the evidence given by PW.2 to 5 and with regard to the notice under Section 80, the court below has observed that there was exchange of notices Ex.P26 letter addressed by the Swamy Sri Lakshmana Charya G.P.a holder of Moola Mutt to District Collector, Rewa on 27.10.2005 shows that Moola Mutt in Tirumala does not vest with the Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa. 27. Further the court below held that issue No.4 is not framed properly as there is no relief sought by the plaintiff to decide the Mahanthship. Suit is filed with regard to the properties situated in Tirumala, therefore, this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the suit filed by General Power of attorney holder of the Moola Mutt for declaration of right and title in respect of the suit 'a' and 'B' schedule properties is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the General Power of attorney holder is not entitled for permanent injunction. 28. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/plaintiff's while assailing the said judgment, mainly relied on the following grounds: (1) The Lower Court ought to have seen that admittedly the rulers of erstwhile Rewa District have donated certain properties to Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan. Consequently, the General Power of attorney holder is not entitled for permanent injunction. 28. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/plaintiff's while assailing the said judgment, mainly relied on the following grounds: (1) The Lower Court ought to have seen that admittedly the rulers of erstwhile Rewa District have donated certain properties to Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan. In as much as Rewa District of Madhya Pradesh was a Princely State of Central India, there was an agreement between the President of India and the Committee constituted for the purpose of management of Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan under Ex.a3, dated 30.03.1954 declaring the property donated by the rules of Rewa District are the personal properties of Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan. admittedly, the properties of the appellant Mutt are not subject matter of said agreement Ex.a3 ad the same were absolutely belonged to and vest in, the lower court ought to have seen that originally, in he year 1912 under three registered Gift Deeds the properties mentioned in Para 4 of the Plaint situated in made Street, Tirumala had been donated to Sri Ramnarayanacharya Swamiji. The said Swamiji made the said property form part of the appellant Mutt and managed the Mutt as being the Trustee of the Mutt. Thus the properties had been dedicated to the deity Lord Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy and was belonged to and vested in the said deity. Thus the appellant Mutt is the absolute owner and possessor forth property. (2) The Lower Court ought to have seen that Sri Ramnarayanacharya Swamiji who was the fonder/grantor had executed a registered document Ex.a1, dated 10.121925 whereby and where under he had nominated Sri Badri Prapannacharya Swamiji as his successor for the purpose of management of the appellant Mutt as being the Trustee of the Mutt. The legal effect of the said document had been clearly established that the properties of the appellant Mutt had not been vested with the Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa District Madhya Pradesh. The respondents/defendants have also admitted the said document in all respects and hence, the Trial Court committed an error in considering the legal effect of recitals therein according to law. The respondents/defendants have also admitted the said document in all respects and hence, the Trial Court committed an error in considering the legal effect of recitals therein according to law. (3) The lower court ought to have seen that Sri Badri prapannacharya Swamiji, who was nominated as a Trustee of the appellant Mutt under Ex.a1, was also Mahanth of Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa District and had managed both the institutions along with other institutions independently. The budgetary allocation of expenditure of the respective Mutts including the appellant Mutt have been separately delt with as could be seen from the proceedings under Ex.a14 to a18. Thus, the appellant Mutt is not part and parcel of Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa District as contended by the respondents/defendants. The Trial court has committed an illegality in not considering the said material documents Ex.a1 to a3 and a14 to a18 and erred in its concussions. (4) The deity of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha of appellant Mutt. (5) The Lower Court ought to have seen that the observations made in Para 9 of the Judgment are unwarranted. The appellant Mutt has always been claiming/asserting its ownerships, possession over the suit schedule priorities and a mere reference as to the properties of other Sri Vaishnava Cult Mutts in Ex.a1 does not in any way affect the rights of the appellant Mutt over its properties. The Trial Court also misread and misinterpreted the recitals under Ex.a1 and erred in holding that Sri Badri Prapannacharya Swamiji, Mahanth of Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa was given right over the properties. Thus, the observation of the Trial Court in the said paragraphs\ that the appellant Mutt is not an independent Mutt is illegal and contrary to the material on record. (6) The lower Court ought to have seen that the appellant Mutt is a private mutt and it is not governed by the provisions of a.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments act, 1987. The said provisions have also no application and gives any right to the respondents to appoint In charge/Manage to the appellant Mutt. They can appoint any person/in charge to their Mutt to Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan situated within their territorial jurisdiction. The respondents have no control over the appellant Mutt in any manner according to law. The said provisions have also no application and gives any right to the respondents to appoint In charge/Manage to the appellant Mutt. They can appoint any person/in charge to their Mutt to Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan situated within their territorial jurisdiction. The respondents have no control over the appellant Mutt in any manner according to law. (7) The lower Court ought to have seen that for the purpose of appointment of a Trustee to the appellant Mutt, the approval of Maharaja of Rewa District is not necessary in as much as the properties belonged to the appellant Mutt and they are not donated by the said Ruler of Rewa District. Thus the appellant Mutt can appoint the Trustee of its choice and the same cannot be taken away by the Respondents/Defendants more so, when the appellant Mutt is an independent Mutt and has not been amalgamated with the Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa. (8) The Lower Court ought to have seen that a reading of Ex.a1 to a3, a14 to a18 categorically established that the appellant Mutt is not vested with the Sri Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa. The Trial Court failed to consider the relevant material on record and erred in dismissing the suit basing on irrelavant, unproved and inadmissible documents. (9) The Lower Court ought to have seen that the appellant Mutt has been represented by its GPa holder. Copy of the GPa was filed along with the plaint. PWs.1 to 5 have categorically stated about the execution of GPa and the respondents haven to raise any objection in their written statement or in the trial. The Trial Court permitted the appellaalnt Mutt being represented by its GPa. Mere non-filing of GPa is not fatal to the case of the appellant Mutt and it is only a curable defect. The Trial court also permitted appellant to represent by its GPa holder and hence, there was a deemed permission in favour of the appellant Mutt to institute the suit through its GPa. Hence, the Court below erred in observing that the copy of GPa was not marked etc. It is also necessary to state here that GPa holder can deposit as a witness and he cannot be equated to that of a party witness and hence, non-examination of GPa holder is also not fatal to the case of hte appellant Mutt according to law.' 29. It is also necessary to state here that GPa holder can deposit as a witness and he cannot be equated to that of a party witness and hence, non-examination of GPa holder is also not fatal to the case of hte appellant Mutt according to law.' 29. Based on the above stated grounds, learned senior counsel has submitted that the court below erred in holding that the plaintiff Mutt is not an independent Mutt and it is part and parcel of the Lakshmanbagh Samsthan and on perusal of the issues framed by the court below, the issue with regard to declaration of Mutt was not framed. Without framing an issue, the court below has declared the the plaintiffs/Mutt is a part and parcel of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan and hence, the 1st issue was held against the plaintiff. 30. Learned senior counsel to substantiate that the plaintiff mutt is independent Mutt, it is not part and parcel of the Lakshmanbagh Samsthan has submitted the following facts: 31. The petitioner Mutt-Uttaradi Srivaishnava Mutt @ Moola Mutt is founded by Ramnarayanacharya in 1912 for promoting Vyshanva cult by installing the idols of Lord Sri Rama Lord Seetha, Lord Lakshmana and Lord anjaneya and Lord Lakshmi Naraswamtha Swamy in the Mutth. In the year 192, Swamiji Ramnarayanacharya made a registered gift deed, marked Ex.a1, and appointed Sri Badripapannacharya Swamiji to look after the affairs of the Mahanth as trustee. Said Badripapannacharya was also Mahanth of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan, Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. In the said document Ex.a1, all these properties shall belongs and vests in the Mutt deity Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami. Said Badripapanna Swamiji shall be a trustee there of and the successor of the trust shall be the same as the line of secession to the said trustees Peetha. 32. In view of the contents of Ex.a1, the properties were vested with the deity and Badriprapannacharya, who is a trustee of Moola Mutt has executed a will on 10.07.1957 in favour of Harivamshacharya as his lawful successor. In the said will, Sri Badriappannacharya swamiji has also a descendant management of Moola Mutt along with its properties and the Badrpapannacharya swamiji is died on 02.08.1957. after his demise, Sri Harivanshacharya has been Managing the properties of Moola Mutt in his place and the same was also admitted by the defendants. 33. In the said will, Sri Badriappannacharya swamiji has also a descendant management of Moola Mutt along with its properties and the Badrpapannacharya swamiji is died on 02.08.1957. after his demise, Sri Harivanshacharya has been Managing the properties of Moola Mutt in his place and the same was also admitted by the defendants. 33. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the crucial documents, which is required to be considered to decide this issue, is the agreement entered in between the Government of Madhya Pradesh in the name of President of India and managing committee of Lakshmanbagh dated 13.03.1954. But surprisingly without considering the contents of the agreement dated 30.03.1954, the court below has held that the petitioner Mutt is part and parcel of Lakshmanbagh Samsthan. Though reliance is placed on page 20 of the judgments, with regard to Ex.a3/B9, but no contents were taken while deciding the issue by the court below. 34. Learned senior counsel heavily relied on the recitals of the said agreement, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner Mutt is not part and parcel of the Lakshmanbagh Samsthan and the main contents of the agreement are extracted as follows: 'aND WHEREaS it has now been decided by the government that all the properties movable and immovable (but not including Jagir lands) at one time belonging to the Lakshman Bag Institution and at preset in possession of the Government should be restored with effect from 01.04.1954 to a Committee (herein after referred to as the Committee) consist - ..... Now therefore, this deed of agreement witnesseth as follows namely:- (1) as from the 1st april, 1954, the committee shall became entitled to posses and manage the immovable and movable properties both as detailed in the schedule annexure to this document. (2) The committee shall from the aforesaid date maintain the Lakshman Bag Samsthan as well as other temples attached to it and termed as, 'Lakshman Bag Group of temples'. (3) ... (4) .. (5) That the committee shall observe and be bound by the following conditions:- (i) That the annual budge showing probable receipts and expenditure will be send to the Government for scrutiny and prior approval. (3) ... (4) .. (5) That the committee shall observe and be bound by the following conditions:- (i) That the annual budge showing probable receipts and expenditure will be send to the Government for scrutiny and prior approval. Necessary provisions will be made in the budge so that not less Rupees one thousand per mensem is spent on the Sanskrit Pathashala, in which education shall be imparted up to Madhyama stage and the balance on maintenance and repairs of the temples and the current charges consisting of Rag Bhog and Sewa Puja of the deities Sadabarjag Hospitality, Gowshala and pocket expenses (ahar and Byohar, Pilgrimage and maintenance of position (Maryada of the Mahant). .... (iv) Separate Register shall be maintained by the Executive Officer appointed by the Committee showing : (a) The name and the salary of the persons appointed in each temple; (b) The jewellery, gold, silver, precious stones, utensils and other movable, belonging to each temple with. (c) The title deeds and other important documents relating to any property of the Institution, and (d) Other important documents relating to the Institution. (v) Regular account of receipts and disbursement shall be maintained and such accounts shall be audited annually or at such other intervals as may be required by the auditors appointed by the Government. SCHEDULE SCHEDULE OF PROEPRTY TO BE HaNDED OVER TO THE LaKSHMaN BaG COMMITTEE PRESIDED BY SHRIT SWaMI JI BaDRI PRaPaNNaCHaRYa, MaHaNT LaKSHMaNBaG.' 1. TEMPLES WITH THEIR MOVaBLE aND IMMOVaBLE PROPERTIES EXCLUDING JaGIR LaNDS (a) Name of the temples with in Vindhya Pradesh Place where situated 1. Sthan Lakshman bag Rewa 2. Raghunath Ji Remar (Satna) 3. Mahranwala Bichhiya (Rewa) 4. Choupra Rewa 5. akharghat Shri Jagannath Ji Rewa 6. Mathura Nath Uparahati (Rewa) 7. Pradhananwala Uparahati (Rewa) 8. Ram Krishna Marariha Uparahati (Rewa) 9. Vaidan Wala Uparahati (Rewa) 10 Khakhri Rewa 11. Pandentola Rewa 12. Pandentola Rewa 13. Bhandariwala Rewa 14. Hanuman Ji Chirahula (Rewa) 15. Ramnath Ji Govindgarh (Rewa) 16. Panchmandir Govindgarh (Rewa) 17. Harchand Rai Govindgarh (Rewa 18. Shital Dwip Govindgarh (Rewa) 19. Jagannath Ji Makundpur (Satna) 20. Durbali Govindgarh (Rewa) 21. Hanuman Ji Lakshmanpur (Rewa) 22. Balramgarh bakna Bakna 23. Krishnagarthq Jhalwara (Satna) 24. Chormari Chormari (Satna) 25. Mauhari katra Mauhari Katra (Satna 26. amarpatan amarpatan (Satna) 27. Bailkunthpur Baikunthpur (Rewa) 28. Semariya Semariya (Rewa) 29. Mangawan Mangawan (Rewa) 30. Halwai Wala Ram Nagar (Satna) 31. Shital Dwip Govindgarh (Rewa) 19. Jagannath Ji Makundpur (Satna) 20. Durbali Govindgarh (Rewa) 21. Hanuman Ji Lakshmanpur (Rewa) 22. Balramgarh bakna Bakna 23. Krishnagarthq Jhalwara (Satna) 24. Chormari Chormari (Satna) 25. Mauhari katra Mauhari Katra (Satna 26. amarpatan amarpatan (Satna) 27. Bailkunthpur Baikunthpur (Rewa) 28. Semariya Semariya (Rewa) 29. Mangawan Mangawan (Rewa) 30. Halwai Wala Ram Nagar (Satna) 31. Damodardas Wala Ram Nagar (Satna) 32. Chandela Chandela (Shahdol) 33. Bandhavadhish Bandhogarh (Umariya) 34. Laxminarayan Chitrakut (Satna)