2011 Supreme(Raj) 2579
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
Shri Jin Kushal Guru Prachin Dadawadi Bhaktjan Samiti, Fatehsagar, Jodhpur - Appellant
Versus
Chetani Vyason Ki Bagichi Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Jodhpur - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 2 of 2009.
Decided On : 26-09-2011
Advocates:
For the Petitioner-Defendant:S.C. Maloo, Advocate.
For the Respondent-Plaintiff:Jagdish Vyas, Advocate.
An eviction suit cannot be used as a substitute for a civil suit under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, to challenge an entry in the Register of Public Trusts.
Headnote:
PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT - JURISDICTION - EVICTION SUIT - BAR OF JURISDICTION - SECTIONS 29 AND 73 - REGISTRATION OF PUBLIC TRUSTS - INQUIRY AND DETERMINATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS - ENTRIES IN THE REGISTER OF PUBLIC TRUSTS - SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OR MODIFICATION OF ENTRIES - LIMITATION - CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION BARRED - INDIRECT CHALLENGE TO ENTRIES - EVICTION SUIT AS SUBSTITUTE FOR CIVIL SUIT UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE ACT - INADMISSIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between two public trusts, Chetani Vyason Ki Bagichi Neelkanth Mahadev Trust and Shri Jin Kushal Guru Pracheen Dadawadi Bhaktjan Samiti, over a property. The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, after an inquiry, held that the disputed property belonged to the defendant trust and registered it as such in the Register of Public Trusts. The plaintiff trust filed an eviction suit against the defendant trust, claiming possession of the property based on alleged rent notes executed by the defendant trust. The defendant trust applied to the trial court to raise the jurisdictional issue under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C., arguing that the suit was barred by Sections 29 and 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (the Act). The trial court rejected the application, holding that the issues raised by the defendant were mixed questions of fact and law and should be decided after evidence was led.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the defendant trust and set aside the trial court's order. It held that the eviction suit was barred by Sections 29 and 73 of the Act. Section 29 bars suits by unregistered public trusts, and Section 73 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide questions that are to be decided by officers or authorities under the Act. The High Court found that the plaintiff trust had not filed a suit under Section 22 of the Act within six months of the entry of the disputed property in the Register of Public Trusts, and therefore, the entry had become final and conclusive. The High Court held that the eviction suit was an indirect challenge to the entry and was, therefore, not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the eviction suit filed by the plaintiff trust was barred by Sections 29 and 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959? 2. Whether the plaintiff trust could challenge the entry of the disputed property in the Register of Public Trusts through an eviction suit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Sections 29 and 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 bar suits by unregistered public trusts and the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide questions that are to be decided by officers or authorities under the Act, respectively. 2. The plaintiff trust had not filed a suit under Section 22 of the Act within six months of the entry of the disputed property in the Register of Public Trusts, and therefore, the entry had become final and conclusive. 3. The eviction suit was an indirect challenge to the entry and was, therefore, not maintainable.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the defendant trust and set aside the trial court's order. The eviction suit was dismissed as not maintainable and barred by law.
JUDGMENT
1. - The defendant has approached this Court by way of present revision petition tinder Section 115 C.P.C. being aggrieved of the order dated 11.11.2008, whereby, the learned trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), jodhpur City, jodhpur rejected the defendant's application under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to raise the jurisdictional question before the trial Court in respect of Eviction Suit No. 80/2000 - Chetani Vyason Ki Bagichi Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Fatehsagar, Jodhpur v. Shri Jin Kushal Guru Pracheen Dadawadi Bhaktjan Samiti, Jodhpur , filed by the plaintiff respondent by framing additional issue for deciding the jurisdictional issue before hand since according to the defendant, the suit itself was not maintainable as barred by Sections 29 and 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (for short "the Act of 1959").
2. The learned trial Court had rejected the said application with cost of Rs. 200/- by the impugned order on the ground that issue Nos. 7-A, 7-B and 7-C are mixed questions of fact and law and, therefore, deserve to the decided only after evidence is led by the parties and hence application under Order 14, Rule 2 C.P.C. was liable to be rejected.
3. Mr. S.C. Maloo, learned counsel for the petitioner defendant submitted that the dispute is between the two public trusts namely; plaintiff-Chetani Vyason Ki Bagichi Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Fatehsagar, jodhpur and defendant - Shri Jin Kushal Guru Pracheen Dadawadi Bhaktjan Samiti, jodhpur for which vide order dated 18.12.1996 in Case No. 11/1986 the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, jodhpur after holding due inquiry in terms of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, after contest put up by the present plaintiff, has clearly held in favour of defendant that the defendant - Shri Jin Kushal Guru Pracheen Jain Dadawadi existed on the said land in question ever since last more than 200 years viz. Samvat Year 1866 equivalent to Christian year 1809 and inter alia said Trust, which was registered as a Public Trust by the same order dated 18.2.1996 had a possessory title ever since on land measuring 24190 sq. ft. of land including said "pracheen Jain Dadawadi", whereas, the plaintiff Chetani Vyason Ki Bagichi Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Fatehsagar, jodhpur only claimed possession of the land in question on which Neelkanth Mahadev temple was constructed for about 100 years ago i.e. after the said 'Dadawadi' came into existence in Samvat Year 1866 about 200 years back from now.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.C. Maloo further urged that while registering both the Public Trusts after holding inquiry that too upon a remand by Commissioner, Devasthan Department, vide order dated 17.5.1993 in terms of Section 18 (2) of the Act of 1959, the present immovable property of the defendant Trust besides movable property was also determined to be belonging to the defendant Trust, namely 24190 sq. Ft. of land including the 'Jain Dadawadi' and, therefore, the present eviction suit filed by the plaintiff in respect of premises falling within the demarcated area belonging to defendant Trust itself under purported rent notes allegedly executed in favour of plaintiff on 19.10.1975 and 5.1.1978 by one Mr. Sardarmal Bhansali and Mr. Motimal Dhariwal said to be president of defendant Trust cannot be entertained in view of bar of jurisdiction of civil Court under Sections 29 and 73 of the Public Trusts Act of 1959 and since suit premises fall within the aforesaid 24190 sq. ft. of land of Shri Jin Kushal Guru Pracheen Dadawadi Bhaktjan Samiti, jodhpur, the plaintiff, Chetani Vyason ki Bagichi could not claim any possessory title or right as a landlord and, therefore, by way of filing eviction suit, the plaintiff seeks to really challenge the findings of Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department indirectly under Section 18 of the Public Trusts Act in the order dated 18.12.1996 against which, P6 appeal filed by the plai
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
