________________
શ્રી અંતરિક્ષ પાર્શ્વનાથ તીર્થ
The conclusions of the Court are embodied in its decree of the 1st October, 1923. It is from that decree that the present appeal is brought.
On full consideration of the whole case their Lordships have reached the conclusion that the decree is right.
The plea of estoppel contained in the written statement is perfectly general in its terms, and the defendants, when asked, refused to give any particulars of its meaning. In the absence of such particulars it seems to their Lordships impossible for the appellants to contend with success that it was thereby intended to set up against the plaintiffs' claim to exclusive management an estoppel which would at once be fatal to the same claim then being substantively put forward by themselves.
But the question is not only one of form or of pleading. It is also one of substance. The appellants' case forcibly presented to the Board was that the facts found by the learned Trial Judge imported an agreement between the two sects as definite and permanent in the matter of joint management. as the time table in the matter of worship was now admitted to be. No such agreement however, is pleaded even in the alternative. No issue with regard to it was directed. No such issue could have been directed as the existence of such an agreement was entirely contrary to the only pleaded case either of the plaintiffs or of the defendants. Moreover the evidence taken was not pointed to any such issue, and as it stands, is, in all its prolixity on this issue, incomplete. In saying this, their Lordships have specially in mind the absence of kalyanchand from the witness box-as absence only justifiable by the fact that this matter on which his evidence-must have been so direct was not in issue at the trial. Lastly, the concession of the timetable now made by the respondents does not, as it seems to
૫૮
