Judgement

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- In the town of Bikaner there is a Math known as Juna Math. The first appellant is the present Mahant of the Math. The second appellant is the presiding deity of the Math. For convenience and brevity we will refer to them collectively as the Math.

2. The primary question raised in this appeal, by special leave, relates to maintainability of the cross objection filed by the Math before the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench) in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1975. the Division Bench has dismissed the cross-objection as not maintainable.

3. The background facts are these :

One Lalgiri Maharaj was a previous Mahant of the Math. He had several vices. He mismanaged the Math and recklessly disposed of its properties. On 19-8-1963 Lalgiri gave on lease the land measuring 2211 Sq. yards in favour of Madan Mohan. The lease was for 99 years with monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. Again on 22-3-1968 Lalgiri sold 446 sq. yards of land to Madan Mohan. It was out of the land which was already leased to Madan Mohan. The sale was for Rs. 4,000/-. Madan Mohan constructed some shops on a portion of the land purchased. He first rented the shops to Jankindas and Mohan Lal and later sold the same to them for Rs. 15,000/-. Madan Mohan is the first respondent, Jankidas and Mohanlal are respondents 2 and 3 before us. There was yet another transaction between the same parties. On April 8,1969 Madan Mohan sold a piece of land measuring 124 sq. yards to respondents 2 and 3 for Rs. 1,500/-. This piece of land forms part of the land which Madan Mohan purchased from Lalgiri.

4. In the meantime, there was change of guard in the Math. Lalgiri was said to have abdicated Mahantship in favour of the first appellant. The Math thereafter filed Suit No. 28 of 1971 challenging the alienations made by LaIgiri. The suit was for declaration that the alienations were without authority and not binding on the Math. It was also for possession of the property from respondents. 1 to 3. The trial court decreed the suit in part. The trial court gave only a declaration that the lease deed dt. 19-8-1963 is null and void. But the relief for possession of the land demised was rejected. The suit for recovery of possession of the land sold by Lalgiri was also dismissed.

5. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court, there were two appeals, before the High Court, one by the Math and another by Madan Mohan. Both the appeals came for disposal before the learned single Judge. By a common judgment dt. July 14, 1975 learned judge allowed the appeal of the Math in part. He gave a simple declaration that the sale was void. He, however, did not give a decree for possession of the land sold. The learned judge also allowed the appeal of Madan Mohan. There he gave him complete relief. He held that the suit as to the lease was barred by time. The result was that the Math could not get back even an inch of land.

6. Against the judgment of learned single Judge there was no appeal from the Math or Madan Mohan. There was only one appeal by respondents 2 and 3 being the Appeal No. 20 of 1975. Madan Mohan was impleaded as the third respondent in that appeal. The Math was impleaded as the first respondent. The Math preferred cross-objection. Madan Mohan did not do anything. He was perhaps completely satisfied with the judgment of learned single Judge. The Division Bench by judgment dt. 3-1-1985 dismissed the appeal on the merits. The Division Bench also dismissed the cross-objection but on the ground of maintainability. The correctness of the dismissal of the cross-objection has been called into question in this appeal.

7. The High Court gave two reasons for rejecting the cross-objection. The first reason relates to the absence of appeal from Madan Mohan or by the Math against the judgment of learned single Judge. The High Court observed : "Thus the lease is good. If Madan Mohan had filed an appeal, then the cross-objection would be competent. The cross-object