Jain Shwetambar Tirth Shree Antariksh Parshwanath

Author(s): Jambuvijay
Publisher: Sumtilal Ratanchand Patni

Page 80

પાર્શ્વનાથ
[ પ ]
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 time-table now made by the respondents does not, as it seems to their Lordships, carry with it any admission of a right on the part of the Digambaris to participate in the management. No one has, in fact, suggested that the time-table without management is valueless, on the contrary, the evidence shows that this has been the prevailing order since the final rupture between the parties took place in 1908.
Their lordships need hardly affirm that they may call the Digambari right to the time-table as now declared, with all its implications, is in no sense a matter of favour. It is a matter of right by the Digambaris will bring them into conflict with the courts. Nor will they forget that, by the admission of their learned counsel before the Board, they make no claim to the collections of money and offerings