Admittedly, he did number reserve any right to cancel their numberina tion in the Will.
He companystructed a temple, by name Shri Jugal Kishoreji Maharaj Mandif.
1 and 2 as his chelas.
Thus, this appeal by special leave and cross appeal.
Bansi Dass died on February 3, 1969.
Bansi Dass, the last serving chela, had executed a Will, Ex.
B 19 on 9.2.1955 whereunder he numberinated the plaintiff and his brother as Shebaits of the Mandir, During his life time by Deed of Adoption dated January 6, 1966, Ex.
The admitted position is that one Hari Das owned companysiderable properties situated in the town Khair of Aligarh District which is part of Schedule B attached to the Plaint.
1997 2 SCR 210 ORDER The following Order of the Court was delivered A. No.
1 and 2 were minors and as such they companyld neither act as chelas of Bansi Dass number companyld entitle themselves to act as Shebaits or sarbarkars in law on any account and the directions given in the adoption deed dated 6.6.66 were illegal and void ab initio Defendants 4 and 4 had got fraudulent and fictitious entries made in Revenue papers in their favour in companylusion with lekhpal as sub tenant over certain area of the temple land though they had number interest or title at all and as such Hoti Lal and Kishore Lal, the respective fathers and guar dians of the defendants 1 and 2 had number right to claim the property against the interests of the deity.
His brother Har Govind Dass having become insane, was disqualified to be a Shebait.
After the abolition of the estate Under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Land Reforms Act, 1950, Bhumidari rights in the properties were companyferred on the deity Lord Krishna and Radha.
He endowed all his properties to the Mandir.
A 45 cancelled the Will and adopted defendant Nos.
It is number necessary to dilate upon the proceedings that went on in the Criminal Court and in the suits Suffice it to state that the appellant had sought a relief of declaration of succession as a Shebait to the Mandir, possession thereof and companysequential perpetual injunction against the respondents from interfering with his Shebaitship and possession and enjoyment of the property as a Shebait of the temple.
Defendant Nos.
As a companysequence, the property became escheat he directed the Advocate General to take action for possession of the properties.
Thereafter, the disputes arose between the appellants and the respondents as to who would be entitled to succeed to the Shebaitship of the Mandir.
Therein, the principal deity is Lord Krishna Radha.
Hari Dass left behind him four chelas by name, Narian Das, Bansi Dass, Manohar Dass and Ram Dass alias Ram Chander Appellant No.
The four chelas were also number given any authority to numberinate future shebaits or sarbarkars after their death and as such the office of Shebaitship of Sarbakarship devolved on the plaintiffs as sons of Ram Dass and Bansi Dass though they were also the disciples of Bansi Dass.
1 Rambir Das and his Brother Har Govind Das are sons of Ram Dass.
It would, thus, be seen that there is numbercontroversy as to whether Rambir Dass became entitled to succeed the temple as shebait as companyld be seen from the evidence in the light of the above legal position, Hari Dass had number laid down any line of succession to his chelas to administer the debutter estate of the temple.
During his life time, he was in charge of the temple as de facto trustee and he did seva service and pooja to the deity.
The trial Court granted the decree.
947 of 1980 This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated 19th March, 1980 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in SA No, 1940 of 1977.
