This judgment was affirmed on appeal by the District Judge, Sitapur, whose decision again was affirmed by the Chief Court of Oudh in second appeal.
4 of 1945 against the decree dated November 25, 1944 of the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Sitapur in Regular Civil Suit No.
250 of 1953, Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 14, 1948 of the Chief Court of Audh, Lucknow in Second Appeal No.
till her death in 1933.
The appellant then filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, for a declaration that the Thakurdwara is a public temple in which all the Hindus have a right to worship.
An application to the Advocate General for sanction to institute a suit under section92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also refused for the same reason.
The Additional Civil Judge, Sitapur, who tried the suit was of the opinion that the Thakurdwara had been built by Sheo Ghulam for worship by his family, and that it was a private temple.
365 of 1945 arising out of the decree dated May 30, 1945 of the Court of District Judge, Sitapur in Appeal No.
14 of 1944.
The first defendant companytested the suit, and claimed that the Thakurdwara an d the idols were private, and that the general public had numberright to make any interference.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Then the first defendant who is the nephew of Sheo Ghulam, got into posses sion of the properties as manager of the endowment in accordance with the provisions of the will.
D. Mathur, for the appellant.
The testator had two wives one of whom Ram Kuar, had predeceased him and the surviving widow, Raj Kuar, succeeded him as Mutawalli in terms of the will and was in management.
