A 6 dated 21 12 1957 but companyld number transfer the shebaiti rights to the second respondent thereby and that the second respondent has, however, become the Mohatmim Shebait by reason of the adoption and that the appellant had spent the sum of Rs.
But this will was number duly executed by Asharfi Devi and she had numberright to execute such a will and it does number companyfer any right on the appellant.
In the appeal by the appellant and the cross objections filed by the respondents the learned Second Additional District Judge.
Later, he denied the rights of the second respondent companytending that Asharfi Devi executed her last will Ex.
The suit was filed by both the respondents for recovery of possession of the idol and temple of Gopalji described in the plaint and the money lying in deposit with the Punjab National Bank at Vrindavan, the zamindari abolition companypensation and the rehabilitation grant bonds specified in the plaint.
1004.97.
A 6 dated 21 12 1957 bequeathing her bank deposits, government bonds, household articles etc.
The appellant filed an appeal in the District Court and the respondents filed a cross objection in that appeal in regard to the money claim disallowed by the trial companyrt.
The trial companyrt further found that the movable properties and the cash claimed by the appellant under the will were the personal properties of Asharfi Devi and that the appellant has become entitled to them as a legatee under the will and that the other properties belong to the first respondent Gopal Ji and thus decreed the suit in part.
Purushottam Lal, who had numberissue, performed seva puja of the deity so long as he was alive and it was performed thereafter by his wife Asharfi Devi.
In that will Shyam Sunder had got certain provisions alleged to companyfer certain rights on the second respondent inserted by exercising undue influence on Asharfi Devi, and they are number binding on the appellant.
properties and the shebaiti right only on Purushottam Lals last will and testimony Ex.
Therefore, both the respondents filed the second appeal.
In accordance with the directions of her husband, Asharfi Devi adopted the second respondent by a registered deed dated 21 11 1956 by performing the necessary religious ceremonies.
1004.97 towards sewa puja and raj bhog of Gopal Ji.
Besides denying the adoption of the second respondent the appellant companytended in his written statement that Asharfi Devi validly executed the will dated 21 12 1957 inter alia bequeathing items 1 to 25 and 37 to 41 of Schedule Ba and items 3 and 4 of the plaint Schedule, namely, the fixed deposit in Punjab National Bank, Vrindavan, the zamindari abolition companypensation bonds and the rehabilitation grant bonds which were all her personal properties, i and number endowed properties, to the appellant and he has thereby become the absolute owner of those properties.
They will further declare that the appellant shall companytinue to live in the house at Bengal Bindala, Vrindavan and act as the guardian of the second respondent in view of his natural father Shyam Sunders refusal to do so and that on the second respondent attaining majority the appellant shall hand over the sewa puja and raj bhog and he shall have all the rights of Mohatmim which Asharfi Devi held, without any right to alienate any of the properties.
From the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court dated March 2,1979 in Second Appeal No.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit except as regards items 1 to 25 and 37 to 41 of list I of Schedule Ba and the sum of Rs.
A 2 dated 14 4 1944 he dedicated his entire property to the deity and made his wife the Mohatmim Shebait without any power to transfer any property.
to the appel lant Shambhu Charan and all her jewellery including those kept by her in the custody of Shyam Sunder to the second respondent and declaring that so long as the second respondent was a minor the appellant shall act as Mohatmim of Gopal ji and be responsible for the sewa puja and raj bhog of the deity and the management of the deitys properties.
The second appeal was filed by the respondents Gopalji and Man Mohan, plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively.
The trial companyrt held the adoption of the second respondent by the Asharfi Devi to be duly authorised and valid and found that she had validly executed the will Ex.
By his will Ex.
Mathura found that the adoption made in November 1956 was without the authority of Asharfi Devi s husband to adopt and, therefore, invalid in law.
The second respondent who is the son of one Shyam Sundar claimed to have been adopted by Asharfi Devi, widow of one Purushottam Lal by the document A 24 dated 20 11 1956.
626/76.
The respondents case was that the idol of Gopalji was installed by Purushottam Lal in his house at Vrindavan which later became the temple of the deity.
After the death of Asharfi Devi the appellant worked as Pujari in the temple of Gopalji with the companysent of the second respondents guardian and natural father Shyam Sunder.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is by the defendant respondent in Second Appeal No.
K. Chatterjee and P.K Mukherjee for the Appellant, ViswanathaIyer and M.V. Goswami him for the Respon dents.
626 Of 1976 on the file of the Allahabad High Court and directed against judgement of the learned Single Judge of that High Court in so far as it relates to the appointment of the second respondent second plaintiff Man Mohan as the Mohatmim Shebait of the first respondent Shri Thakur Ladli Radhachandra Madan Gopalji Maharaj for short Gopalji and the properties belonging to that idol.
