Against this Judgment the Appellants filed an appeal to the High Court and the Respondents filed cross objections.
This companytention was also rejected on a review of the evidence led by both parties, and also, by relying on Exh.
In this view the case was, remanded to the District Judge for determining the appeal on merits.
1 which embodied a companypromise between the two Sects under which the right of the Respondents to worship the idol was specifically admitted.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 5, 1966 of the Rajasthan High Court.
The Civil Judge of Bhilwara decreed the suit of the Plain tiffs, against which the Defendants appealed.
After remand the District Judge companyfirmed the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court with certain variations.
The companytroversy between the parties as is evident from these issues was, as to which Sect of the Jains the main idol of Adeshwarji belongs, which Sect has companystructed the upper portion of the idol referred to and the nearby portion of the temple under what tenets have the followers of the Sects, Digamber and Swetamber, performed Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan of the idol of the temple referred to and can any Sect change those previous tenets , whether the Notras artificial eyes of the idol, Bhujband and Dhwajadand over the temple existed before and if number, can they be placed and inserted number and whether the Temple is in possession and under the management of the Defendants alone from the time it came into existence.
That Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan, Reddy, J. This Appeal by Special Leave of this Court is against the Judgment of a Single Judge of the Rajas than High Court affirming the Judgment and decree of the, District Court with certain variations.
1 to 9.
T. Desai, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadachanji and Pukhraj Singh, for the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On these pleadings issues were framed on 3 12 55 but subse quently after the evidence in the case was recorded and having regard thereto fresh issues were framed in substitution of the former ones on 4 6 57 but thereafter numberevidence was led by either party.
On these allegations it was prayed that the Defendants be restrained by a permanent injunction from i erecting the Dhwajadand, and putting up Kalash ii enclosing the idols by putting up doors and locks or in any manner altering the nature and shape and appearance of the idols installed in the said Temple or directly or indirectly doing any act or thing which may have the effect of wounding the religious susceptibilities and sentiments of the followers of the Digamberi Jain Sect and iii from interfering with the free and unfettered rights of the Plaintiffs of performing Darshan.
object of interfering with and obstructing the free exercise by the Digamberies of their unfettered rights to perform Poojan, Prakshal and worship of the said ideal according to their tenets.
Leave to Appeal was also refused.
158 of 1967.
V. Gupte, K. K. Jain and H. K. Puri, for respondents Nos.
It also held that an attempt was made by, the Swetamberies in 1949 to install the eyes in the idol and that as most of the Appellants witnesses admitted that though Dhwajadand was offered on certain occasions which were retained by the Oswals Swetamberies there was numberDhwajadand and Kalash on the temple itself.
The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Temple was companystructed and the idol, was companysecrated according to and by the followers of the tenets of the Digamber sect that the Plaintiffs and the other followers of the Digamber Sect have been performing Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan of the said idol according to their tenets every since the Temple was founded that on the 23rd of December 1949 the Defendants attempted to companyvert the said idol into the idol of Swetambri Sect by putting Chakshus artificial eyes thereon, but were prevented from doing so by a strong opposition of the followers of the Digamber Sect that thereafter some temporary arrangements were made between the followers of the two Sects who agreed to maintain the status quo until a decision of the Civil Court on the rival claims of the parties was given that in disregard of the temporary settlement and without getting the rights in the Temple adjudicated upon by the Civil Court, the Defendants made arrangements to put Dhwajadand and Kalash on the said Temple according to their tenets,, and that they also further learnt that the Defendants were intending to enclose the said idol by putting up doors and locks with the.
The Defendants did number deny that they,intended to put the Netras but said that they did so because the Netras which the idol had even before the said date having been damaged and fallen out, new Netras were put up.
of the idol of Adeshwarji, the first Tirthankar in the Temple named after him at Paroli without interference according to the tenets observed by the Digambri Sect of the Jain religion.
It, was further averred that the said idol and the Temple is in all respects Jain Swetambri Sect, that it has been so used and described in all the historic records from time to time and that the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to decide the religious rights of the parties number is it a dispute of a civil nature.
Respondents 1 to 9 filed a suit against the Appellants and Respondents 10 and 11 and two others for a declaration that they have been carrying on and are entitled to carry on Darshan, Prakshal and Poojan etc.
222 of 1964.
in S. P. Civil Regular Second Appeal No.
Prakshal and Poojan and other rites according to the tenets of Digamber Jain Sect.
The said Temple of Shri Adeshwarji is said to have been in existence for 200 years while, the Respondents aver that the inscriptions on it bear Vikram Samvat 1510 1454 AD .
They further claimed that since its existence the Temple of Adeshwarji has been in the possession of the Defendants who have been in exclusive management of the Temple and its property that the Plaintiffs never used to do Poojan or Prakshal in the Temple number had they any Tight thereto, and that when in 1949 there was a dispute between the parties a temporary arrangement was made but the Defendants did number admit any right of Plaintiffs to Poojan.
