Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Plaintiff filed a suit in the trial court wherein a prayer was made that the defendants may be restrained from interfering or in any way disturbing the management and affairs including Seva Puja and Bhograg of the temple of Thakurji Shri Mahadevji and Thakurji Shri Laxmi Narainji and the properties in possession of the plaintiff. Besides this, other relief was also claimed.

It is averred in the plaint that the temple of Thakurji Shir Mahadevji situated in the South Eastern quadrant of Choper Sanganer, now known as Baiji Ka Khanda, was founded, worshiped and managed as their own temple by the ancestors of the plaintiff. It was also stated that the said temple of Thakurji Shri Mahadevji was rebuilt and rejuvenated by Shri Jamnaji Manas with full recognition of the sole rights of the plaintiff's ancestor Pt. Jairamji and his descendants about 'Mahantship', 'Shebaitship' and rights of the management of the said temple in Vikram Samwat 1766. It was also submitted that the idol of Thakurji Shri Laxmi Narainji was installed thereafter by Smt. Vichtra Kumariji in presence of Maharaja Sahib Sawai Jai Singh of Jaipur in Samwat Year 1794 and at that time, Pandit Jagannathji Chela of Swami Sanwaldas Brahmin Gaur Dotolia of Bilochi was the Shebait of the said temple of Thakurji Shri Mahadevji and idol of Thakurji Shri Laxmi Narainji. Sometime in Samwat Year 1925, during the regime of Maharaja Sawai Ramsinghji of the then Jaipur State, the plaintiff's ancestor Pt. Mahadevji, the then Mahant and Shebait of the temple of (3 of 41) [CFA-89/1979] Thakurji Shri Mahadevji and Thakurji Shri Laxmi Narainji proceeded on a pilgrim and he handed over the management of Sevapuja of the temple of Thakurji Shri Mahadevji with his own men, and with regard to the management of the temple of Shri Laxmi Narainji, Pt. Mahadevji requested the "Dharmarth Vibhag"

3. The plaintiff that the Government of Rajasthan or any of its Department had got no right whatsoever to interfere and intermeddle in the plaintiff's management of the affairs including Sevapuja and Bhograg of the said temples of Shri Mahadevji and Shri Laxmi Narainji as the same belonged to him and are the properties of the plaintiff and his ancestors, under absolute and complete gift in which the dedicators did not keep any rights in themselves and the same are properties of the plaintiff and he is the 'Mahant' and 'Shebait' of the said temple. The State Government has no right to deprive and detain the income of the said shops and he is entitled to claim accounts. The plaintiff further averred that some portion of the premises of the temple is occupied by the Telephone, Education, Water Works Departments for which separate steps are being taken by the plaintiff. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the order dated 02.07.1958 was not a Government order and has no force of law to cancel the previous order dated 21.01.1955 which was passed in the capacity of trustee. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff is the 'Shebait' and 'Mahant' of the temple. The defendants were bent upon taking possession of the temple by dispossessing him and therefore, they were to be restrained.

(5 of 41) [CFA-89/1979]

4. Refuting the plaint, the defendants submitted their written- statements, contending that the suit property was constructed by the erstwhile State of Jaipur, which by virtue of the merger became the property of the State Government and since then, the management of the property has remained with the government.

It was denied that the temple in dispute was of the plaintiff's ancestors. It is stated that it was never founded by the ancestors of the plaintiffs nor it was managed or worshiped by the ancestors of the plaintiff. It is also averred that the temple in question was all along managed by the then Jaipur State through its servants and after merger is being managed by the State of Rajasthan. It was also denied that the temple was ever rebuilt or rejuvenated by Shri Jairam Ji Manas. It is also statted that Pandit Jairamji and his descendants were not 'Mahants and 'Shebaits' of the temples and had no right of management of the temple and Pandit Jairamji was not the ancestor of the plaintiff. It is also stated that no recognition was given about the Mahantship/Shebaitship of the temple of Jairamji Manas. Pandit Jamna Ji Manas was never managed the temple. It is also stated that no gift of the temple with any right of management or the Bagichi or any other property was ever made by Vichitra Kumarji in favour of the plaintiff's ancestors. It is also stated that the plaintiff's ancestors never exercised any right over the temple and its properties and the properties were never their personal property. It is also stated that Pandit Mahadev was not the Mahant of the temple. It is also denied that he ever went to any pilgrimage or he ever requested the 'Dharmarth Department' or the then Jaipur State to look after (6 of 41) [CFA-89/1979] the management of Sevapuja during his absence nor he ever authorised the said 'Dharmarth Department' to realise and collect rent of 24 shops.

The issue which requires to be considered is whether plaintiff's ancestors were Mahants/Shebaits of the temple, this fact is also not at all proved by the plaintiff. No documentary evidence is produced to establish to prove the said fact.

In this manner, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the temple in dispute was founded and built by his forefathers and his forefathers were 'Shebaits' and 'Mahant' of this temple and for this reason, he has a right to manage the affaris of the temple.