(1) It is the defendant who has filed this second appeal. The parties, herein-after in the judgment, shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

(2) The suit out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed by Baghula Mukhi Devi, Bankhandi through its Mohitmim and Mahant Shanti Gir seeking declaration that the defendant is not entitled to interfere with the management and control of the temple and the properties attached to it as detailed in the plaint. It was also stated that he was not the Chela of Shanti Gir through whom the present suit has been filed and the defendant is wrongly claiming his rights of management in the affairs of temple whereas he has no such right nor he is the Chela of Mahant Shanti Gir as is being claimed by him. The temple has considerable property attached to it. A part of the property is said to be in possession of the defendant and decree for possession has also been claimed in respect of that property. The defendant is sought to be permanently restrained from interfering with the management of the temple, its religious affairs and customary rituals and ceremonies in the conduct of POOJA and looking after the other services required.

(3) The present suit was filed on Dec. 31, 1980 and incidently, Mahant Shanti Gir, through whom the present suit was filed, died on the very next day, i. e. January 1, 1981 and the suit after the death of the deceased Mahant has been pursued by Devi Gir who claimed himself to have been legally appointed as Mahant and Mohitmim of the temple and was also held to be legal representative of deceased Mahant vide order passed by the learned trial Court dated June 11, 1984.

(4) The defendant, while resisting the suit, raised several pleas. It is said that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and the suit has been filed without proper instructions from the deceased Mahant and he being ill and feeble, was incapable of imparting instructions to the counsel for filing the suit. It is also contested that legal representative of the deceased Mahant, i.e. Devi Gir, is not competent to continue the suit and the suit does not survive after the death of Mahant Shanti Gir as the suit had been filed in his personal capacity as office-holder of the institution and appointment of Devi Gir by itself would not confer the status upon him to seek declaration in the present suit in respect of his right, title and interest in the temple and properties attached to it.

(5) It was also pleaded by the defendant that he was a Chela of the deceased Mahant having been appointed way back on June 5, 1949 and ever since then he has been looking after management, control and other affairs of the temple and he is also in possession of a house as well as a part of land which he has right to possess as a Chela and successor for the benefit of the temple in the event of death of Mahant Shanti Gir. It is also pleaded by the defendant that he has been rendering services to the institution as well as to the deceased Mahant as his Chela and had been performing all duties of Mahant even during the life time of Mahant Shanti Gir his Guru. He has, thus, claimed that he has every right to associate himself in internal affairs of the temple and its properties, and Devi Gir is not entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction and the suit in a way has become infructuous after the death of Mahant Shanti Gir.

(6) In the replication filed by the plaintiff, pleas taken in the plaint were reiterated and those in the written statement were denied. Besides the plaintiff claimed himself to have been installed on the "Gaddi" of Mahantship by the "Bhek" as well as worshippers according to the well recognised custom of the sect and as per wishes of the deceased Mahant. He claims himself to be the trustee on whom the interest of the deceased Mahant has devolved which clothes him with a status to continue the suit.

(7) Out of the controversy between the parties, the following issues were framed :

"1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction OPP.

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form OPP.

3. Whether Devi Gir is successor of Mahant Shantigir

4. Whether defendant was validly appointed as Chela of Mahant Shantigir OPP.

5. Whether the defendant was not virtuous, as alleged. If so, its effect OPP.

6. Whether the defendant is successor of Mahant Shanti Gir, if so with what effect OPD.

7. What is the effect of the order dated 11-6-1984 Whether is it repudiated OPP.

8. Whether the plaint was not drafted in accordance with the instructions of Mahant Shanti Gir If so its effect OPD."

Two additional issues were also framed which are as under :

"1 . Whether Sh. Dev Gir is not entitled to continue the suit as alleged OPD.

2. Relief."

(8) The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, but a portion of it consisting of a house and a piece of land is in an unauthorised possession of the defendant. It was found that Mahant Shanti Gir had been looking after the temple and had been managing its affairs as well as property and though he had inducted the defendant as his Chela, yet, as the defendant misconducted himself, he was not found fit to be appointed as Mahant. Before his death, a will was executed in favour of Devi Gir who was also his Chela. After the death of Mahant Shanti Gir, in the congregation held on the 13th day of his death, the "Bhek", worshippers and people of the village duly appointed Devi Gir as Mahant of the institution in place of his deceased Guru" Mahant Shanti Gir and the trust properties are being managed by him in his capacity as such.

(9) The learned trial Court further found that though the defendant had been appointed as "Chela" way back in the year 1949, yet on that ground itself he was not entitled to succeed Mahant Shanti Gir nor he had any right to manage the temple and its affairs as such. It was also found that the defendant had mis-behaved with the deceased Mahant who was his Guru and there were a lot of complaints against him. The matter was even reported to the police and on account of this misconduct, Shanti Gir was dissatisfied with his acts, conduct and behaviour, and decided to deprive him of succession to the "Gaddi" of Mahantship and instead nominated Devi Gir to succeed him after his death. This would show that the right and interest as claimed by the defendant, even if there was any, was done away with by the deceased Mahant during his life time. In sequence of these findings, the suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be decreed with the mandate that the defendant had no concern whatsoever with the temple and its properties and further restraining him from interfering in the management and control of the temple as well as in the cultivation of the landed property attached to it. However, it was added in the relief part that, "the defendant is restrained from interfering in the suit property till he is appointed as Mahant by "Bhek" and general public," and the decree was drawn up in these terms.

(10) Defendant Jagdish Ram, feeling agitated from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, filed first appeal. The plaintiff also filed cross objections. The appeal as well as cross objections have been disposed of by a common judgment and stand dismissed by the learned first appellate Court. In the cross objections filed by the plaintiff it was agitated that on the death of Shanti Gir, Devi Gir came to be appointed the Mahant in succession to Mahant Shanti Gir on his death and applying Order 22, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, the learned trial Court held that it was a case of devolution of interest in respect of the trust property. It was agitated that in the relief part in the judgment, "till he is appointed as Mahant by the Bhek and general public," requires deletion. It was urged that these observations are redundant and superfluous in the light of the earlier findings recorded on various issues.

(11) The learned first appellate Court concluded, "that there is no need for deletion of these words because the judgment passed by the learned trial Court has merged in the judgment of appellate Court and there is no need to mould the relief." It was further observed that in judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the right of the defendant to be appointed as Mahant of Baghulamukhi temple has not been taken away for all times to come. The appeal as well as the cross objections were disposed of with these observations. The observations are not happily worded since the appeal as well as cross objections were being disposed of by the same judgment.

(12) It is pertinent to notice here at this stage that the appellant/defendant died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court on Dec. 13, 1994 and his legal representatives have been ordered to be brought on record in substitution to him vide order dated Sept. 27, 1995. In the application filed under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, it has been said that the deceased appellant has left behind three Chelas who are to be brought on record. Be that as it may.

(13) The plaintiff has also filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 230/94 under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and vide order dated August,26, 1994, the application was ordered to be heard along with the appeal. In this application the plaintiff has prayed that as per copies of the Jamabandis for the year 1981-82 and 1987-88 (Annexure A-1 and A-2) filed along with the application, it is apparent that the de fendant had succeeded to the estate of temple Karela Mahadev claiming himself to be the Chela of one Shamsher Gir and, thus, he could not claim to succeed to the estate of the plaintiff under law as Chela of Mahant Shanti Gir. This application in a way goes infructuous on account of the death of the defendant/appellant in this case.

(14) It may also be noticed that during the proceedings before the trial Court, Tehsildar, Dehra was appointed receiver in respect of the property of the temple and it is an admitted position that he continues to manage the temple, its properties and the income so realised is with him. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant, Pt. Om Parkash, contends that substantial questions of law framed by him and filed along with the appeal are the only questions sought to be agitated by him. The questions so framed, are given hereunder :

"1. Can a legal representative set up his individual right or set up a plea open to him personally in the litigation initiated by the original plaintiff

2. Whether in the instant suit, which was alleged to have been instituted by Shri Shanti Gir, could the Courts below frame an issue for determination of the rights claimed personally by Shri Devi Dass as Mahant/Mohtmim

3. Whether Shri Devi Dass alias Devi Gir having been allowed to be brought on record as legal representative of Shri Shanti Gir could have been allowed to set up his personal rights or pleas open to him, which were not available to Shanti Gir

4. Can the pleas set up by Shri Devi Dass alias Devi Gir be said to be appropriate to his character as legal representative

5. Whether the defendant appellant, who admittedly was an appointed Chela can be removed as Chela through will executed by late Shri Shanti Gir"

(15) A bare look at the aforesaid questions gives rise to one question only and that is, whether Devi Gir, as successor to the original plaintiff, could be permitted to claim his personal rights as a Mahant of the institution and is he entitled to the management and control of the institution and properties attached to it The contentions raised by Pt. Om Parkash, briefly put, are that whether issues Nos. 3, 5 and 6 , as reproduced earlier in the judgment, could or could not be decided in the suit which has been continued by Devi Gir It is said that the findings recorded on these issues are without jurisdiction as the pleas which were raised by Devi Gir and that too in the replication could not be gone into and he could agitate these pleas in a suit which he could have filed in his own right claiming declaration in respect of his Mahantship.

(16) Pt. Om Parkash contends that the order dated June 11, 1984 passed by the learned trial Court is one under Order 22, Rules 2 and 3 of Civil Procedure Code and Devi Gir was ordered to be brought on record in his capacity as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff. This capacity would not entitle him to raise pleas personal to him, which could only be agitated by way of a separate suit and not in the suit as originally filed by Mahant Shanti Gir. He could be permitted to depend only on the pleas already set up in the original plaint. Incidentally, the plaint was not got amended by him and the issues have been framed on the pleas which were raised by Devi Gir for the first time in the replication.

(17) The arguments are also based on issue No. 7 and it is sought to be agitated that the order dated June 11, 1984 holding Devi Gir to be the legal representative of the deceased Mahant Shanti Gir shall certainly affect the interest of the defendant particularly in view of the observations made by the learned trial Court in the relief part of the judgment where the matter has been impliedly left open to the defendant to agitate that he has been appointed Mahant by the "Bhek" and general public.

(18) Mr. Ramakant Sharma, appearing for the plaintiff, in reply, has adopted the same line of reasoning as given by the learned Courts below in the impugned judgments. It is further argued that application is a part of the pleadings and in the given set of circumstances, the plaintiff having been appointed as a Mahant of the institution on the death of the deceased Mahant, was well within his right to raise the pleas which were available to him in the changed situation and issues were framed keeping in view these pleas and the defendant raised no objection at that time. The parties have led evidence thereafter on these issues and findings have been recorded. It is now too late for the defendant in second appeal to contend that these issues were wrongly framed and the findings recorded are without jurisdiction.

(19) Mr. Ramakant Sharma further contends that the suit was filed by the plaintiff for the protection and preservation of the trust property and Devi Gir, the present Mahant, having succeeded to the "Gaddi" of Mahantship, continued the suit as originally framed by his "Guru" Mahant Shanti Gir and there was no impediment in his way to raise these pleas which have been considered and decided in his favour.

(20) After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, after weighing the respective contentions raised by them and after careful scrutiny of the impugned judgments and the record, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal.

(21) The temple concededly belongs to "Gosain" sect of Mahants. It is also an admitted fact that Shanti Gir was the Mahant of the institution and the temple as well as the properties attached to it remained under his control and management during his lifetime. It is further an admitted position that defendant Jagdish Ram was appointed "Chela" by the deceased Mahant Shanti Gir way back in the year 1949 but the defendant belied the faith of his "Guru" reposed in him and misconducted himself for which the deceased Mahant Shanti Gir felt perturbed and ultimately, on the strength of a will, made his intentions clear that Devi Gir would succeed him after his death as Mahant and Devi Gir, according to the well-set custom, has been accepted and appointed as Mahant of the institution on the 13th day of death of Mahant Shanti Gir in the congregation held by the members of the "Bhek", the worshippers and the residents of the village.

(22) "Bhek" is the body of Mahants belonging to the same sect and their "Akhara" is the parent institution which has the right and authority to appoint and remove a Mahant for his mis-deeds. "Bhek" normally respects the wishes of deceased Mahant, if so expressed; but his desire is not binding on the "Bhek" and the appointment is by way of election and not selection.

(23) Assuming, in a case where Mahant leaves behind several "Chelas" and does not nominate any one of them to succeed him to the "Gaddi" of Mahantship, a question would arise as to who out of the Chelas is to be appointed a Mahant. The right is evidently left to the " Bhek". In some cases, the senior most Chela, if found fit, may be elected. In some cases the ablest of all may be chosen. The matter is left to the wisdom of "Bhek" and the Civil Courts should always respect authority of the "Bhek" and interfere with such appointments only when an apparent deviation is made from the rule.

(24) Worshippers, Sewaks and villagers do assemble to partcipate in the function as it is a festive occasion. They also participate in the appointment and other rituals and ceremonies which are performed on the occasion. Their opinion, in a given situation, may be asked for by members of the "Bhek" but the authority in respect of appointment lies within the exclusive domain of the "Bhek" which is the supreme authority.

(25) So far as the appointment of the plaintiff Devi Gir is concerned, both the learned Courts below have noticed in detail his appointment on the "Gaddi" of Mahantship and in my opinion too, he has been proved to have been validly appointed as a Mahant in succession to his deceased Guru Mahant Shanti Gir. Reference may usefully be made to the will dated January 15, 1979 (Ext. P-1) executed by the deceased Mahant in favour of Devi Gir. It is not denied that Devi Gir is also the Chela of deceased Mahant. It is also in evidence that he was brought up, educated and trained well in the rituals and ceremoneis of Pooja in the temple by the deceased Mahant. He was helping the deceased Mahant during his life time and is well conversant with the day-to-day functioning of the institution and other affairs of management and its property. This desire expressed by the deceased Mahant through his will was accepted by the "Bhek" in its resolution dated January 1 5, 1981 Ext. P-4. The nomination was, thus, ratified in the meeting of the general body of the sect held at Dasnam Panch Joon Akhara Ganga Mandir Durgiana Abadi Amritsar. There is further a resolution dated January 3, 1982 of the parent institution, i.e. the Akhara recognising the appointment of Devi Gir. This is of the record. Still further there is Ext. PW-6/A which is Panchayatnama accepting the plaintiff as Mahant and having been appointed Chela by the deceased Mahant in the general public.

(26) Vide Ext. RW-1, Devi Gir, plaintiff executed an Ikrarnama binding himself to be faithful to the institution and undertook to safeguard its property and carry out the affairs for its betterment. Besides this documentary evidence, persons who were present in the congregation, have been examined by the plaintiff. No fault could be found that the custom followed in case of the plaintiff was not accepted to be correct.

(27) It has come in evidence that the defendant was the sisters son of the deceased Mahant Shanti Gir. Hari Singh has been examined as PW 4 who has deposed that the defendant misbehaved with his Guru and he used to take drinks. The witness was working in the office of Superintendent of Police at that time and has made a statement that the late Mahant had made a report with the police that the defendant misbehaved with him and he was dis-satisfied with his behaviour and conduct. The defendant was a school teacher. Reasons for dis-inheriting him have also been given by the deceased Mahant in the will Ext. P-1. He was consequently removed from his status of Chelaship as he failed to discharge his duties as such. His act and conduct was said to be wholly unbefitting the institution and his removal was thought fit keeping in view the sanctity.

(28) The arguments being raised by Pt. Om Parkash cannot be appreciated as Devi Gir, on the strength of his having been validly appointed as Mahant immediately on the death of deceased plaintiff, was to project his case in order to protect his right, title and interest in the property as well as in the institution. He has not claimed any personal interest in the property. All what he has claimed is that the "Gaddi" of Mahantship has devolved upon him by way of a well-recognised custom and he had full rights to pursue the suit filed by his deceased Guru in the best interest of the institution and its objects.

(29) It cannot be lost sight of that the original plaintiff Shanti Gir died the very next day on which the suit was instituted. Devi Gir, having been appointed on the 13th day of his death, in his application to bring him on record in substitution to the deceased Mahant, was well within his right to contend that he has been so appointed by way of a recognised custom and all rituals and ceremonies had taken place in recognition of his Mahantship by the "Bhek", "Sewaks" and other villagers. It may also be seen that the person who has right to appoint , has also the right to cancel such an appointment. No legal right vested in the defendant simply on the strength of having been nominated as Chela in the year 1949. His appointment as a Mahant still rested with the "Bhek" and other "Sewaks" and even if the deceased Mahant had not cancelled his Chelaship, the "Bhek" could still reject him outright. At best, the case of the defendant was that he was in queue to the "Gaddi" of Mahantship. As said above, the appointment to Mahantship is made by way of election by the religious body who, in the given case, would be the parent body in the appointment of Mahants, popularly styled as "Bhek".

(30) In the order dated June 11, 1984 whereby Devi Gir was brought on record as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, it has been observed that the order was being passed under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. This technical aspect has simply to be ignored keeping in view the provisions of Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code which deals with the devolution of interest and are fully applicable to this case.

(31) The provisions make it amply clear that in cases of assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. The case has thus to be governed as devolution of Mahantship and its "Gaddi" on the next incumbent. Once the matter is interpreted in this manner, there is absolutely no difficulty in holding that Devi Gir, in the given set of circumstances, was well armed to plead his appointment being valid and the office having devolved upon him in the traditional and customary manner and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in this respect can neither be said to be without jurisdiction nor are otherwise liable to be upset.

(32) The matter can be viewed from another angle also. The deceased defendant Jagdish Ram, at best, was claiming his status as Chela of the deceased Guru in order to succeed to the "Gaddi" of Mahantship on the death of the deceased Mahant. He had not actually been appointed as Mahant and that is not his case. Unless and until the Chela is appointed as a Mahant, he has no vested right in him as such. His case is only to be considered for appointment as Mahant by his Guru and the "Bhek" has full authority to accept it or not. The defendant died during pendency of the appeal and surprisingly, three more persons have come on record claiming themselves to be his legal representatives and they also claim themselves to be the Chelas of the deceased defendant who himself was yet claiming to be the Chela of deceased Mahant Shanti Gir. It has come in evidence that the deceased was in possesion of a piece of land as well as a house attached to the temple and the plaintiff had also prayed for decree of possession with respect thereto. Ext. PX is the copy of "Misal Hakiat Bandobast Jadid" where possession of the defendant is recorded as unauthorised.

(33) It is too well known that in suits relating to institutions and its managements, no specific prayer for delivery of possession has to be made. The entire property along with institution vests in the idol which is a juristic person capable of holding the property in its own name and as a juristic person. The interest has to be looked into as that of a minor and the Mahant only acts for the benefit of the institution and for preservation and protection of its properties so as to save it from invasions from unscrupulous elements. Devi Gir just continued the suit on the pleas which were unfolded by his deceased Guru Mahant Shanti Gir. He, in addition to the pleas already raised, laid a claim about his own status as the interest of the original plaintiff came to be devolved upon him which was challenged by the defendant and on that basis the issues came to be framed and tried on the controversy so raised.

(34) It is too late in the day for the defendant to contend that the issues have been wrongly framed and the findings recorded are without jurisdiction. In case the defendant felt so agitated, he should have moved an application for the deletion of these issues immediately after these were framed. However, it was not done. The matter was not even argued from that angle either before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court. The arguments, though cannot be appreciated as are being raised for the first time in second appeal before this Court, still these have been considered and are being answered.

(35) It has further come in evidence that plaintiff Devi Gir has made improvements in the institution by his dedicated services. Some new constructions have been raised by him. He has also paid back some loan which the deceased Mahant Shanti Gir had raised from a Society for the maintenance of the temple.

(36) The learned trial Court on the question of devolution of interest, has dealt with the matter in paragraph 17 of the judgment and in my opinion, the matter has been considered in its proper perspective. It may be taken note of that the suit filed by the original plaintiff was in a representative capacity as a Mahant and Manager of the temple. The right to sue, in the given set of circumstances, devolved on his next successor, Devi Gir who has been proved to have been duly and validly appointed as Mahant of the institution.

(37) The "Gaddi" of Mahantship is by itself a property as one who occupies it or adorns it, has the right to receive offerings from its devotees and worshippers. It would, thus, follow that no fault can be found with the suit continued by Devi Gir. The issues framed and decided have also avoided multiplicity of litigation. Right to manage the temple and the properties attached to it, is a valuable right and the Mahant, for the time being, has vast powers which he can exercise in this respect and his right and authority cannot be challenged unless it is shown to have been exercised against interest of the institution or is further in erosion to the tenets or objects for which the institution came to be established.

(38) The matter can be viewed yet from another angle. Assuming, in the given situation, a Mahant, through whom the institution has brought out legal proceedings, dies and no application is filed to bring on record his legal representatives within the prescribed time, can such proceedings be dismissed as abated The Honble Supreme Court, in such situation, has clearly laid down that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end simply because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon another and the suit can be continued by the person acquiring such interest in a representative capacity. It was interpreted that it was a case of devolution of interest of the representative and Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has to be applied and not Rule 3 or 4 of Order 22. The judgment reported in AIR 1975 SC 2159, (Rikhu Dev v. Som Dass) can be read with advantage in this respect. It was further held by the Supreme Court that the devolution of the interest in the subject matter of the suit took place when Shiama Dass was elected as Mahant of the Dera after the death of Som Dass. Their Lordships further noticed case law on the point under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code while examining the points agitated before them.(Emphasis added)

(39) In my view, as I read this provision, the devolution can take place either in view of the death, removal or for any other reason. It can, thus, be said with certainty that the rule is not confined to devolution of interest by death alone. Assuming, a sitting Mahant is removed by the "Bhek", or he resigns or he bestows upon his Chela the "Gaddi" of Mahantship in consultation with the "Bhek", in all these cases it would be devolution of the reins of his office and the person on whom the interest devolves, can always come forward to continue the proceedings to enable him to get effectively and completely adjudicated all questions that are agitated in the case. Rules 2, 3 and 4 apply only when there is devolution of interest on the death of the plaintiff or a defendant. These Rules would have no application when a suit is brought by or against a person in his representative character as head of the institution or as Manager. The successor immediately on assuming the office, i.e. "Gaddi" of Mahantship is the successor head of the institution and has to be substituted as a party in a pending litigation and would continue the suit and would be bound by the result of the litigation.

(40) The matter would be absolutely different if the suit had been filed as one under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. In such a suit successor cannot be substituted as the relief can be claimed only in the given set of circumstances and on the conditions being fulfilled as laid down under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The word "interest" as used in Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, has not been given any special meaning. It would mean an interest in the property which is subject matter of the suit. He would represent the interest of the person who was party to the suit.

(41) As I look at the matter, the debate raised on the present controversy now appears to be merely of academic interest. A decree of permanent injunction was being claimed against the defendant who has admittedly died. It has been concurrently found by both the learned Courts below that he had no right, title or interest either in the institution or in the properties attached to it. The decree has been passed in the best interest of the institution. When the defendant himself has been held to have no right, how his legal representatives, who have now been brought on record as appellants in this appeal, can be said to h ave derived any right, title or interest from the deceased defendant

(42) The learned trial Court in the relief part has certainly gone wrong in observing that the defendant was at liberty to file a suit on the strength of having been appointed by the "Bhek". This observation appears to be a surplusage and the learned first appellate Court has also fallen in error by not carefully examining the point raised in the cross objections filed by the plaintiff.

(43) When the plaintiff has been held to be a duly and validly appointed Mahant by the "Bhek", the only manner in which such a trustee can be removed is by way of a suit under Section 92 and by no other means.

(44) It is quite painful to see that the defendant is in unauthorised possession of one house and small piece of land which, admittedly, belongs to the temple. In the revenue record, noticed above, his possession is stated to be unauthorised. As the plaintiff has been held to be a duly and validly appointed Mahant, he will be entitled to its possession forthwith and in case the possession is with the receiver, the same would be handed over to the plaintff - temple through its present Mahant.

(45) The receiver is directed to hand over the complete management and control of the temple and its properties to the plaintiff along with all the amounts received by him during his tenure of receivership and a copy of the accounts is directed to be sent to this Court within two months from today. The receiver is discharged from his duties. The Tehsildar, Dehra by designation would continue to hold over all supervision with a view to see that the temple and the properties are being well managed and he will also give valuable suggestions to the plaintiff from time to time. It is, however, made clear that the Tehsildar shall have no right of interference what so ever in the internal affairs in the running of the institution by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is directed to maintain true and faithful accounts of all the income and expenditure of the institution and its properties and shall send it regularly to the Tehsildar, Dehra after every four months. In case the Tehsildar is of the opinion that the temple and its properties are not being managed properly by the plaintiff or the accounts being maintained by the Mahant are doubted, he would submit a report to the concerned Deputy Commissioner, who, after notice to the plaintiff, shall decide the matter keeping in view the best interest of the institution.

(46) In view of what has been said above, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are upheld with the modifications as detailed above. The appeal being wholly devoid of merit, is ordered to be dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Appeal dismissed.