Sunil Gaur, J.

1. In this representative suit under Section 92 of the CPC, removal of Defendant No. 1 to 4 from the Trustee-ship from `Mandir Madana and Sawan Das Dharmarth Trust' with directions to render accounts and to deliver the possession of the trust properties, as disclosed in paragraph no: 2 of the plaint, to the new Trustees is claimed on the plea that the aforesaid Trust is being mismanaged.

2. Aforesaid Trust is stated to be registered and one of the Trust property is said to be located in Delhi and the Temple and Dharamshala of the Trust in Madana was purportedly meant for the use and enjoyment of the residents of Delhi and the legal representatives of the Settler of Trust are said to be residents of Delhi. The cause of action to institute this suit purportedly arose in August, 1980, when the Statutes of Lord Radhakrishna and other articles were removed from the Temple known as Mandi Radhakrishna, situated in Village Madana, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana; and again, when the said Piao/Piggi and agricultural land attached thereto was allowed to be illegally occupied by unauthorized occupants and the irregularities as to creating a new tenancy and sell out of the properties belonging to Trust, came to light. Lastly, it arose in first week of February, 1984, when the Defendants had finally refused to render the accounts of the Trust.

3. On 7th February, 1986, leave was granted to the Plaintiffs to institute this suit and thereafter, written statement was filed by the Defendants, but it would be worthwhile to refer to the written statement filed by the surviving Trustee/Defendant No. 4, who has taken number of preliminary objections and has raised a challenge to the maintainability of this suit and has denied that the residential property No. 4116-18, at Naya Bazar, Delhi, which is under tenancy, is not a trust property but is the exclusive property of the descendants of Late Shri Sawan Das. However, it is not disputed that the Temple in Village Madana was constructed in somewhere in the year 1908 by forefathers of Late Shri Sawan Das and Shri Dewat Ram and the same was maintained with the aid of donations and contribution made by descendents of Late Shri Sawan Das and some funds contributed by the society known as `Mandir Madana and Sawan Das Dharmarth Trust'.

4. It is pointed out that the property mentioned at S.Nos. (i) to (vi) in paragraph no: 2 of the plaint, nowhere exists and though some articles were stolen from the Temple in Village Madana and with a view to save the idols installed in the Temple, the Pujari had brought them to Rohtak and later on, they were reinstalled in the Village Temple. It is categorically denied that any Trust property had situated in Delhi or that any Trust was ever created. The written statement originally filed by Defendant No. 2 and on behalf of Defendant No. 5 - Society is on the similar lines as filed by Defendant No. 4. In the replication filed by the Plaintiffs, the stand taken in the plaint is reiterated.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following Issues were framed:

(i)

Whether the suit, as framed, is maintainable within the scope and purview of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(ii)

Whether the Plaintiffs or any of them have locus standi to institute the suit?

(iii)

Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the present suit?

(iv)

Whether proper and sufficient Court fee has been paid on the plaint?

(v)

Whether the suit is not bad for misjoinder of Defendant No. 6 and 7 who have been or are the employees in the Temple?

(vi)

Whether any Trust known as `Mandir Radha Krishan Madana Kala Trust, as paragraph no: 1 of the plaint, and in respect of which reliefs have been claimed in the suit, was ever formed in 1931-1932? If so, what was its constitution and which was the Trust Deed evidencing the formation of the said Trust? OPP

(vii)

If Issue No. 6 is in the negative whether `Mandir Madana Sanwal Dharmarth Trust' is the same as Mandir Radha Krishan Madana Kala Trust? OP