book of the year 1969-1970, (paper No.315ga, 316ga, 317ga and 318ga), application for sanction of map submitted to the Municipal Board (Ex.7 and Ex.14), oral evidence of DW-1Mahadeiya, wife of Ram Krishna, DW-2 Ramesh Chand, DW-3 – Jagannath Dixit, PW-1- Harish chandra Gupta and rent receipts being paper No.56C, 205C, 206C and 207C, the surrounding circumstances, intention of the testator Lal Man and the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratap Singh Ji N. Desai (supra), Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi and another (supra), Kuldeep Chand and another (supra), Malayammal (supra), Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi (supra), Dayal Chand (supra), K.S.Palanisami (Dead) through Legal Representatives (supra), Deoki Nandan (supra), Tilkayat Sri Govindlalji Maharaj (supra). The relevant portions of the aforesaid judgments have already been reproduced in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. The alleged compromise decree in partition Suit No.2 of 1962 is not binding in view of the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs of this judgment as well as the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagubai Ammal (supra), Kishori Lal (supra), Banarasi Das (supra), the judgment of Privy Council in Mohd. Imam Ali Khan (supra), and the judgments of this Court in Rahmanul Hasan (supra), Devi Shankar and others (supra), Mohd. Kafeel and another (supra). The partition suit for partition of the suit property amongst individuals was not maintainable being a public charitable endowment. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the suit property is not Dharmshala property but he could not
