9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by his widow, Shrimati Bhagwati Devi, and that its income was in fact used for the expenses of 'Bhograg' of the deity and that Respondent No. 1 had no right to sell the same and the sale deed dated October 14, 1968 executed by him in favour of the respondents nos. 2 and 3 was null and void. The said suit was contested by the vendees, respondents nos. 2 and 3 as well as by the vendor, respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 4 who was a tenant in the said shop admitted the claim of the appellants. The contesting respondents pleaded that there was no such temple as that of Shri Radha Govindji and that it was a place of private worship established by Shrimati Bhagwati Devi. It was asserted that the suit shop was never dedicated to the deity, ft was further pleaded that even if there was any such dedication by Shrimati Bhagwati Devi, it had no effect in law because Shrimati so Bhagwati Devi had already taken Ram Babu in adoption. The said suit was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Bharat pur, on the view that the temple of Shri Radha Govindhji was a public temple and that the suit shop had been dedicated in favour of the temple and Ganesh Dutt, who was only a manager, had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional District Judge that the temple is a public temple. The only question which requires consideration is whether the suit shop has been dedicated to the deity and it belongs to the temple of Shri Radha Govindji, and the respondent No. 1 was only a manager of the temple and its properties including the said shop. The appellants have adduced evidence to show that (i) Shrimati Bhagwati Devi had dedicated the shop in favour of the deity; and (ii) Ram Babu, the father of Respondent No. 1 had admitted that the suit shop was the property of Shri Radha Govindji and that he was the manager of the temple. 4. With regard to the dedication by Smt. Bhagwati Devi, the High Court has affirmed the finding of the appellate court that the ex-parte decree passed in the suit filed by Smt. Bhagwati Devi for cancellation of the adoption of Ram Babu was void and Ram Babu continued to be the adopted son of Laxmi Narain and as such Smt Bhagwati Devi had no right to make a dedication of the shop in favour of the deity. 5. In order to prove the admission of Ram Babu the appellants have placed reliance on the judgment (Ex.D2), warrant (Ex. 3) and decree (Ex. 4) in Civil Suit No. 31 of 195 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and one Sushila Devi was acting as his guardian. That suit was brought against one Nathi, who was claiming independent right over the entire properties of the temple including the shop in question. That suit was decreed in favour of deity Radhagovindji and Ram Babu minor. In that litigation there was no issue involved w with regard to dedication of any property in favour of temple. The main question which calls for determination in the present case is as to whether the shop in question had been dedicated to the deity and if so when and by whom.... If we examine the effect of admission by Exs. B2, 3 and 4 the question of dedication of the shop in favour of the deity by Ram Babu is totally ruled out. In fact litigation Ram Babu has been shown admittedly as minor is and there could not have been any dedication by Ram Babu earlier in point of time to that litigation. There is no iota of any evidence nor any allegation or pleading by plaintiff that the shop was subsequent to that litigation dedicated by Ram Babu or the present defendant Ganesh Dutt, who is the son of Ram Babu. 10. From these observations, it appears that one of the considerations which weighed with the High Court w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. But before we do so, we would deal with the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 12. The learned Counsel for respondents nos. 2 and 3 has urged that the matters in issue in the earlier suit against Nathi were different from those which were in issue in the present suit. This contention, in our view, proceeds on a misconception. The earlier judgment in the suit filed by Ram Babu against Nathi is not being invoked in support of a plea of res judicata. If that were so, it would have been necessary to examine the matters in issue in the earlier suit and how they were decided. Here, we are only concerned with the admission of Ram Babu as plaintiff in the earlier suit that the suit shop was the property of temple of Shri Radha Govindji and Ram Babu was the manager of the said temple and other properties and the said admission is sought to be proved by judgment (Ex. 2) and decree (Ex. 4) in the earlier suit. 13. The learned Counsel for respondents nos. 2 and 3 has also assailed the right of the appellants to challenge the sale of the suit shop in their favour. We find no substance in this submission. The temple has been found to be a public te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
