SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Raj) 1364

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
Ramesh Chandra Brahmin (Sevak) - Appellant
Versus
Milap Chand Mathur and Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 483 of 2006.
Decided On : 13-02-2015

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Arpit Bhoot, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Rajesh Parihar, Advocate.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100, Rajasthan Public Trust, 1959, Section 29 – in this case, the appellant challenged the order of the Trial court and first appellate court-the HC observed that as per the facts of this case, the appellant was only allowed to reside temporarily in that house-hence the HC did not allow the appeal on the ground that there is no substantial question of law which needs to be discussed here-as per the Act, there is no mandatory requirement of registration of trust-further there needs to be a minimum value of the trust after which they can apply for registration-in the instant case, the objection raised by the appellant was that the suit is not maintainable because the trust property is not registered-the HC observed that since the trust property is less that the prescribed limit, hence there is no need for registration-also the court observed that this objection is not related to the root cause of this case-hence not sustainable.

JUDGMENT

1. - This second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Deedwana in Civil Regular Appeal No. 60/1999 (38/1992, 128/1992) "Ramesh Chandra v. Milap Chand & Ors." who dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1992 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in Civil Original Suit No. 177/1987 "Milap Chandra & Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra" by which, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate had decreed the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs-Milap Chand & Ors seeking possession of property in question, which is a house, situated at Deedwana, District Nagaur belonging to the Padha Mataji Temple Trust, Deedwana. The appellant-defendant Ramesh Chandra S/o Mool Chand Brahmin (Sevak), since deceased now represented by his legal representatives namely, Mohan Lal Sevak and two others, has filed the present second appeal-being aggrieved by the concurrent decree of dispossession granted by the two Courts below in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs in respect of the house, a residential quarter, which belongs to the Diety, Padha Mataji Temple Trust and the plaintiffs Milap Chand S/o Banshi Lal Mathur, Shanker Lal S/o Mool Chand Bagaria-Agarwal and Chhagan Lal S/o Dhan Raj Sevak, claimed to be the Trustees of the said Temple and are interested persons in the Trust property filed the present Suit (No. 177/1987) for possession against the appellant-defendant Ramesh Chandra, who was allowed to live in the house in question by permissive possession given by the Trustees of the said Temple. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 10.9.1992 and the first appeal [No. 50/1999 (38/1992. 128/1992)] filed by the defendant-appellant Ramesh Chandra came to be dismissed on 21.9.2006 by the appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Deedwana.

2. The relevant facts of the case and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on issue No. 1 are quoted herein below for ready reference:-

rudh la[;k ,d dks izekf.kr djus dk Hkkj oknhx.k ij ,oa rudh la[;k pkj dks izekf.kr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij j[kk x;k FkkA bl lEcU/k esa oknhx.k dk dFku gS fd mDr fookfnr edku Hkaojyky nthZ dks fdjk;s ij fn;k gqvk Fkk] ftldh e'R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k edku [kkyh gksus ij vLFkkbZ rkSj ij fu%'kqYd izfroknh dks jgus ds fy;s fn;k x;k] ftlls ckcr ,d bdjkjukek fnukad 17-10-1985 dks fy[kk x;k] tcfd izfroknhx.k dk dFku gS fd og bl edku esa fiNys rhl lkyksa ls jgrk vk jgk gSA bl lEcU/k esa oknhx.k us tks viuh lk{; is'k dh gS] mlesa ih0M0&1 xokg feykipUn ekFkqj dk dFku gS fd fookfnr lEifr ij dbZ ckj dCtk dkQZr fdjk;snkj ds Fkk] vafre fdjk;snkj Hkaojyky nthZ dk Fkk tks vdsyk jgrk FkkA Hkaojyky dh e'R;q gks xbZ rks mlds yM+ds txnh'k us edku [kkyh dj ekrkth dks lkSai fn;k vkSj bl ij ekrkth dk rkyk FkkA 1985 esa jes'k us eafnj ds O;oLFkkid ls dgk fd esjs edku esa esjh eka ?kqlus ugha nsrh gS] blfy;s ;g edku eq>s VsEizsjh :i ls ns nks] eSa ,d nks ekg esa [kkyh dj nwaxk vkSj fxMfxMkus yxk rks eSa Hkaojyky lsox us r; fd;k fd mlds jgus fn;k tk; rc mldks VsEizsjh :i ls fcuk fdjk;s jgus dh btktr nh vkSj jes'k us ijfelh its'ku dj ,d ykblsal dk :dk fy[kdj ns fn;k tks izn'kZ ,d gS] ftl ij ,0 ls ch0 nLr[kr jes'k ds gSA bl ykblsal ds tfj;s og edku esa jgus yxk] vkt rd og edku [kkyh ugha dj jgk gSA mlds ikl Lo;a dk jgus ds fy;s vPNk edku chl dne nwj gS tks ?kj dk gS vkSj mlh ls dCts esa gSA bl edku dk nf{k.kh fgLlk vHkh ekrkth dks gSA jes'k 1985 ds igys bl edku esa dHkh ugha jgkA ftjg esa bl lk{kh dk dke gS fd nkok djus ls igys izfroknh dks edku [kkyh djus dk uksfVl fn;k FkkA lk{kh ih0M0&2 }kjdkizlkn dk dFku gS fd bl edku esa izfroknh jes'kpUnz 5&6 o"kksZa ls jg jgk gSA jes'k ls iwoZ vafre fdjk;snkj Hkaojyky nthZ jgk FkkA izfroknh ykpkjh djus yxk] o dgk fd vki dgsaxs rc [kkyh dj nwaxkA vLFkkbZ rkSj ij eq>s ;gka jgus nksA mlus bdjkjukek izn'kZ&1 fy[kdj lfefr dks fn;kA izfroknh ls edku [kkyh djus dks dgk rks mlus euk











































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top