JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. This first regular appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been filed by the defendants-appellants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1990 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karauli (for short ‘the trial court’) in civil suit No.05/85, by which the trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No.2 (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) for declaration and possession. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and possession against the defendants in which it was mentioned that a temple of Murti Shri Dwarkadhish Ji was built by the Swarnakar and Zadiya Community. They have right to Mohatmin and Shevait. Members of the Swarnakar and Zadiya Community constructed two story temple with one Pator annexed thereto. Two shops were also got constructed for meeting out the expenses of Bhog-rag of the temple. Prior to the year 1931, Late Har Prasad grand-father of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 was appointed as Pujari of the said temple. Said two shops, were also entrusted to Shri Har Prasad to control and manage for meeting the expenses of Bhog-rag. Pator (house) was also given to him for residential purpose. After the death of Shri Har Prasad, Shri Bhola Nath was appointed as Pujari of the said temple. After the death of Shri Bhola Nath, the defendants were appointed as Pujaries of the said temple. They began to represent themselves as the owners of the said temple and misutilized the rent of two shops. They changed the name of said temple from Dwarkadhish Ji to Satyanarayana Ji and did not handover vacant possession of the said temple to the plaintiffs. It was also mentioned in the plaint that in the year 1931, a survey was conducted by the then Government of Karauli and Shri Har Prasad, grand-father of the defendants admitted that the said temple is in the ownership of Swarnakar and Zadiya Community and he was Pujari of the said temple. 3. The defendants filed a written statement before the trial court and denied the averment made in the plaint and submitted that Shri Bhola Nath did not give any statement before the Devasthan Department on 27.07.1944. The said temple is of Satyanarayana Ji and not of Dwarkadhish Ji. 3. The defendants filed a written statement before the trial court and denied the averment made in the plaint and submitted that Shri Bhola Nath did not give any statement before the Devasthan Department on 27.07.1944. The said temple is of Satyanarayana Ji and not of Dwarkadhish Ji. He also stated that Shri Gopal Swarankar Zadia made a Sankalp of the temple in favour of one Hanuman Pandit, who was the ancestor of the defendants. So, the plaintiffs did not have any right against the defendants. 4. The trial court on the basis of pleadings, framed the following issues:- I. Whether the disputed temple, the dharamshala annexed thereto as well as two disputed shops are the properties of Shri Dwarkadheshji and the same had been got constructed by all Swarnkar and Zadia’s of Karauli for the worship of idols? (ii) Whether the disputed temple and the other property was entrusted by Swarankar and Zadiyas to the ancestors of defendant Nos.1 and 2 with the condition that so long as they shall worship, they shall continue to reside alongwith their families in Dharamshala annexed to the above temple? (iii) Whether the ancestral of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were given two disputed shops simply for meeting out expenses of Bhog Rag of idol and other expenses? (iv) Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 proclaimed themselves to be the owner of the aforementioned property and continued to spend the income arising therefrom for their personal uses and stared to cause damage to the property of the temple by demolishing it? (v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the defendant Nos.1 and 2 removed from the worship of the above temple and to take possession of the disputed property? (vi) Whether the valuation of the disputed property is not less than 50,000/- and the deficit court fee has been paid? (vii) Whether the suit was time barred? (viii) What relief can be granted to the plaintiff? Additional issue as issue No.8A was also framed (IX) Whether the disputed property is a trust property, the value of which is more than Rs.40,000/- and it being not registered under the Act, suit was not maintainable under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act? 5. (viii) What relief can be granted to the plaintiff? Additional issue as issue No.8A was also framed (IX) Whether the disputed property is a trust property, the value of which is more than Rs.40,000/- and it being not registered under the Act, suit was not maintainable under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act? 5. To prove their case, the plaintiff No.1-Girdhari Lal examined himself as PW-1, and got examined PW-2 Sukha Lal, PW-3 Shrawan Lal, PW-4 Udai Chand and PW-5 Vinodi Lal & Ramcharan and exhibited 17 documents. 6. To prove their case, the defendant No.1-Giriraj Prasad examined himself as DW-1 and got examined DW2-Shri Kedar Lal and exhibited documents A1 to A7. 7. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment dated 01.12.1990 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence led by both the parties in right perspective and wrongly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiffs had no ownership regarding temple as well as shops attached to it. The temple does not belong to Shri Dwarkadhish Ji, whereas it is a temple of Satyanarayana Ji. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that Shri Har Prasad grand-father of the defendants admitted the ownership of Swarnakar and Zadiya Community but signature of Shri Har Prasad was not duly proved and no hand-writing expert report was submitted before the trial court. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that Shri Bhola Nath had not given any statement before the Devasthan Department on 27.07.1944 and the alleged statement does not possess his signatures. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that during pendency of the appeal, the defendants filed an application Under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Along with the said application, they filed the old paper of Danpatra of the said temple wherein Shri Lalaram Jadia had donated the said property to Pandit Hanuman Prasad. The said document is more than 100 years old. So, the plaintiffs have no right regarding disputed temple as well as two shops attached to it. So, the judgment dated 01.12.1990 passed by the trial court be set-aside. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Shamsher Vs. The said document is more than 100 years old. So, the plaintiffs have no right regarding disputed temple as well as two shops attached to it. So, the judgment dated 01.12.1990 passed by the trial court be set-aside. 9. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Shamsher Vs. Rustam reporte din 1988 AIR (Rajasthan) 188; (2) Profulla Chorone Requitte and Ors. Vs. Satya Choron Requitte reported in 1979 AIR(SC) 1682; (3) Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan Vs. Nand Lal & Ors. repored in 2017 AIR (SC) 3603. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the temple Shri Dwarkadhish Ji belonged to Swarnakar and Zadiya Community. Two shops were got constructed for meeting out the expenses of Bhog-rag of idol. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that the defendants changed the name of temple from Shri Dwarkadhish Ji to Satyanarayana Ji. They also mis-utilized the rent of the said shops. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that in the year 1931, a survey was conducted by the then Government of Karauli in which grand-father of the defendants Shri Har Prasad admitted the fact that the temple belongs to Swarnakar and Zadiya Community and he is a Pujari over there. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that father of the defendants-Shri Bhola Nath also admitted himself as Pujari of the said temple. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that Pujari can not get the ownership of the temple. So, the trial court has rightly ordered for eviction against the defendants. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 12. It is an admitted position that temple of Shri Dwarkadhish Ji belongs to Swarnakar and Zadiya Community. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 12. It is an admitted position that temple of Shri Dwarkadhish Ji belongs to Swarnakar and Zadiya Community. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 from which it is clear that document (Daanpatra) was written by Shri Lalaram Jadia in favour of Pandit Hanuman Prasad of which there is no relevancy in the suit because grand-father of the defendants-Shri Har Prasad admitted the fact that in the year 1931, a survey was conducted by the Government of Karauli in which he clearly stated that the said temple belongs to Swarnakar and Zadiya Community and he is Pujari there. Father of the defendants-Shri Bhola Nath also admitted before the Devasthan Department that he is a Pujari in the said temple. The plaintiffs had adduced the evidence before the trial court that the defendants had misused rent of the temple property. Being Pujaries, they cannot be considered to be the owner of the said temple. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 13. Pending application(s), if any also stand(s) dismissed.