Skip to content


Ganga Pershad Vs. Megh Raj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in51Ind.Cas.236
AppellantGanga Pershad
RespondentMegh Raj
Cases Referred and Mugjoo Paudaen v. Ram Dyal
Excerpt:
temple birt, suit to recover share of, whether main-tainable. - - 531 these decisions are, however, clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in them it was held that a suit for a declaration that a person was entitled to a share in religious offerings of this nature did not lie......a suit for a declaration that a person was entitled to a share in religious offerings of this nature did not lie. in the present case megh raj does not ask for such a declaration but claims a definite amount due to him as a so sharer in the said birt. the courts below having held that he was a co sharer during the period in question, we are of opinion that the suit lies.5. this petition for revision is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. In this case Megh Raj, plaintiff-respondent, sued Ganga Pershad, defendant-petitioner, for the sum of Rs. 110, alleging that to be due to him on account of his share in the birt of the Nagarkot temple at Bhawan. He averred that he, the defendant, and a Musammat Ishri had been co-sharers in the said birt up to the death of Musammat Ishri, which took place in the earthquake in 1905; that subsequent to her death he and the defendant had been co-sharers in the said birt and had been taking their respective shares, but that from May 1809 to May 1912 the defendant alone had been realising the offerings and had not paid the plaintiff his moiety. The plaintiff estimated the three years' income at Rs. 300 and, allowing Rs. 80 as expenditure, he claimed Rs. 110 as his half share.

2. The Courts below held

(1) that the parties were co-sharers in this birt, and (2) that the defendant had realised the offerings during. the period in suit which amounted to Rs. 300 but had not paid plaintiff his half share.

3. The plaintiff was accordingly granted a decree for the amount he claimed.

4. Ganga Pershad has preferred this petition of revision against the said decree and the only point for determination is whether the present suit lay. Counsel for the petitioner has referred as to Kanshi Chandra v. Kailash Ohandra 3 C.W.N. 279; Gour Mani Debi v. Chairman of Panihati Municipality 14 C.W.N. 1057; Dwarka Nath Misser V. Ram Protap Misser 18 C.L,J. 449 and Mugjoo Paudaen v. Ram Dyal 15 W.R. 531 These decisions are, however, clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in them it was held that a suit for a declaration that a person was entitled to a share in religious offerings of this nature did not lie. In the present case Megh Raj does not ask for such a declaration but claims a definite amount due to him as a so sharer in the said birt. The Courts below having held that he was a co sharer during the period in question, we are of opinion that the suit lies.

5. This petition for revision is accordingly dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //