he denied that the temple was built at the expense of the ruler of the state of bharatpur or that he ramchand was appointed to be a priest of the temple by the ruler of bharatpur.
and of the temple properties and foran order calling upon the defendant ramchand to account for the realisations of the estate of the deity.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated september 22 1964 of the allahabad high companyrt in first appeal number 39 of 1952.
suit number 41 of 1947 was filed in the court of the civil judge mathura by the deity thakur janki ballabhji maharaj acting through its manager l. tulsiram authorised agent of the bharatpur state for a decree for possession of the temple of the deity at brindaban in u.p.
the suit was resisted by ramchand.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 574 of 1966.
b.mehta for respondent number 2.
he companytended that one ram narain kedar nath had taken a piece of land at bindraban on rent from the temple of govindji and after companystructing a temple thereon and installing the thakurji had given it as an offering to sitaram ancestor of ramchand and had appointed sitaram as the manager of the temple that the temple had since then remained in the management of the descendants of sitaram and that he ramchand was in possession of the temple and its properties as manager and proprietor.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah ag.
of thakur janki ballabhji maharaj and dedicated the temple to the deity that the shebait of the deity who was a paid employee of the state was appointed by the ruler of the state of bharatpur that one chhotelal was appointed a priest to perform the worship in the temple under a written agreement dated april 8 1936 that after the death of chhotelal on may 13 1912 ramchand was appointed the priest of the temple on companydition that he shall execute the usual agreement in favour of the state that ramchand entered upon the duties as pujari but failed to execute the agreement and in companyrse of time raised various companystructions of his own on the premises in dispute and companyverted them into private residential buildings and illegaily used the temple as a lodging house for pilgrims to the utter detriment loss and desecration of the deity and thereby acquired illegal benefit to himself out of the temple properties and that ramchand was number performing the seva puja of the deity.
the case of the plaintiffs was that the ruler of the state of bharatpur built the temple at brindaban and installed the idol.
p. goyal and sobhag mal jain for the appellants.
