________________
પાશ્વનાથ
[ $3]
defendant Digambaris by cross objections to the decree, set up again before the court of the Judicial Commissioner. Central provinces their respective cases as originally pleaded. Before that court, however, as stated in its judgment, the Swetambari appellants no longer contested the right of the Digambaris, as declared by the decree of the Trial judge, to worship in their own way and in their own time, according to the time-table, to which must be added the statement of their Counsel before the Board that they now make no claim to the collections of money and offerings made by worshippers during the periods of worship assigned to the Digambaris. The cross-objections of the Digam: baris having failed to impress the court, the issue thert, at the end of the day, resolved itself into the question whether the Subordinate judge was wrong in refusing to grant to the Swetambaris a declararion of their exclusive right of management, Counsel for the Digambaris finally contending only for the retention of the joint management as decreed by the Subordinate judge. In the result the Appellate Court declared and held that the Swetambaris were, on the facts found, entitled to the exclusive management of the Temple, and that the plea of estoppel set up by the written statement had no reference to that position.
