Alok Sharma, J.

Under challenge by the petitioner-plaintiff Badrikashram Joshi Charitable Trust Jaipur (hereafter 'the plaintiff trust') is the order dated 28-3-2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereafter 'the Appellate court') in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.17/2017 (401/2017) titled RD Baheti Charitable Trust Vs. Badrikashram Joshi Charitable Trust, whereby the order dated 23-9-2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (East) Jaipur (hereafter 'the trial court') in case No.39/2016, on an application for temporary injunction to the benefit of the plaintiff Trust inter alia protecting its possession on the suit property and its right to do seva puja of the deities installed on the suit property while restraining the RD Baheti Charitable Trust (hereafter 'the defendant trust') from interfering with the said possession and seva puja was set aside.

2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff trust was registered under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereafter 'the Act of 1959') on 3-10-2011. It filed a civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC against the defendant trust in regard to the suit property situate at Bagrana, Agra Road Jaipur where inter alia a temple of lord Hanuman ji, Shivji and Sitaram ji is situate on a parcel of land being khasra No.474 measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas in the ownership of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) but in its possession. It was stated that the said property albeit standing in the name of the JDA in the revenue record had been developed by the plaintiff trust with financial support/ contributions from the general public and was being managed by the plaintiff trust which was also doing seva puja of the deities consecrated on the land. Yet the defendant trust was trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff trust and obstructing the seva puja of various deities including that of Hanumanji and Shivji situate within the suit property. This despite the right of seva puja with the plaintiff trust being recognized in the registration of 3-10-2011 as a public charitable trust under the Act of 1959. Thereupon injunction in the manner detailed above was sought.

3. On service of summons in the suit, the defendant trust filed a written statement as also reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC denying all averments and instead claimed possession and management rights of the temple including the right of seva puja of the deities on the suit property. It was submitted that Hanuman Prasad Joshi, the purported Trustee of the plaintiff trust was in fact only appointed as pujari and in that capacity also allotted a quarter for his residence within the suit property. It was submitted that the suit property having been fully developed by the defendant Trust, the said Hanuman Prasad Joshi was actuated by sheer greed and conspiring to misuse the property under the facade of the plaintiff Trust which had been clandestinely got registered as a public trust wholly ultra vires the Act of 1959. Possession of the plaintiff Trust was denied and that of the defendant Trust asserted.

4. The defendant No.4 in the suit, the Sarpanch of village Bagrana, where the suit property is situate, filed a written statement supporting the case of plaintiff trust and it having developed the temple/s while being in possession of the suit property. On consideration of the plaintiff Trust's application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC the trial court considering the factum of registration of plaintiff trust on 3-10-2011 under the Act of 1959 whereunder its right to seva puja of the deities in suit property were recognized, , the inspection report of the Inspector Devsthan department in the course of enquiry under the Act of 1959 prior to the registration of the plaintiff Trust recording that the plaintiff Trust was in possession,