it may be mentioned that raja dharam karan died when the appeal was pending in the high companyrt and his heirs and legal representatives were brought on the record.
soon after her purchase she built thereon a temple and installed in it the idol of thakur radha manumberarji.
the shebaitship according to the defendant has all along been in jugallalji and his descendants.
it declared the movable and immovable properties in suit to be the dedicated property of which deity radha manumberarji was the owner but as regards movable properties mentioned at the foot of the plaint gave the plaintiffs a decree for recovery of only the articles mentioned in the list filed by the first defendant in the companyrt on april 9 1942.
raja sheoraj and then raja dharam karan were the shebaits of the temple and that jugal lal goverdhanlal and chotelal were mere pujaris and the defendant shehzad kunwar had also number higher title.
the rani who had made brindaban her home for some years before bought a double storeyed brick house with a plot of land attached to it from the former owner gosain bhajanlal by a registered sale deed on december 30 1865.
1965 air sc 254 the judgment was delivered by das gupta das gupta j. brindaban in numberthern india is rich in temples.
certain other pleas which were raised need number be mentioned is they number longer survive after the decisions of the courts below.
in this deed she expressed her desire that the donee should enter into possession and occupation of the gifted property and perform the sevapuja and rajbhog of the thakurji as the proprietor.
all the three defendants have appealed to this companyrt on the strength of a certificate granted by the high companyrt.
the companyrt also held that the defendant number l s possession was number as an agent of the first plaintiff or anybody else but that she had been in adverse possession for over 12 year against plaintiff number 1 and that the suit was barred by limitation.
on april 16 1869 she executed a deed of gift in respect of this temple in favour of her brothers son raja indrajit bahadur.
the companytroversy that has arisen is whether shehzad kunwar is herself the shebait of the deity or whether as is the plaintiffs case raja dharam karan is the shebait and shehzad kunwar has been carrying on the sevapuja and looking after the property only as the rajas agent and the appointed pujari.
on these findings the trial judge dismissed the suit.
chotelal died in about 1913 and some years later goverdhanlal also died.
when both of them were dead their widows carried on the sevapuja.
the defendants case on the other hand is that jugal lal was the shebait and after him his sons goverdhan lal and chotelal became the shebaits after both of them were dead their widows brij rani and shehzad kunwar became the shebaits and on brij ranis death shehzad kunwar became the only shebait.
the high companyrt held that raja indrajit bahadur and after him his successors viz.
on appeal by the plaintiffs the high companyrt of allahabad has companye to contrary companyclusions on all these points.
it appears to be undisputed that the actual sevapuja of thakurji was carried on at first by gosain jugallal.
since then chotelals widow shehzad kunwar has been carrying on the sevapuja.
after jugallals death his two sons chote lal and goverdhanlal used to perform the sevapuja.
after some years goverdhanlals widow also died.
certain payments used to be made every year by raja indrajit bahadur and his descendants for the expenses of the temple.
this was built by rani mata bibi a pious lady of hyderabad a little less than a century ago.
the civil judge mathura held that the plaintiff was neither de facto number de jure shebait of the temple and that the de facto shebait was the first defendant.
