A sale of trust property without the requisite sanction under Section 31(1) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, is void ab-initio.

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.

1. By the instant appeal under Section 96 CPC, appellants have challenged order dated 29th of October, 2018, passed by District Judge, Pali (for short, 'learned Court below') in Civil Misc Case No. 27/2012. Learned trial Court, by the impugned order, has allowed application under Section 40 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short, Act of 1959') filed by respondents and declared disputed sale-deed dated 9th of May, 2011, executed in favour of the appellants, as void ab-initio in want of Section 31(1) of the Act of 1959.

2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that some persons interested in the public trust filed an application under Section 38 of the Act of 1959 before Assistant Collector, Devasthan Department Jodhpur stating therein that one Dharmshala at Station Road, Sumerpur (Undri) was registered with the Devsthan Department, in the name of "Shah Chamnaji Hukma Ji Dharmshala" on 21st of February 1977 bearing registration No. 229. It is also averred that the Dharmshala is a public trust and its trustees have no right to sale or gift its property despite that its Manager Pukhraj executed a power of attorney in favour of Ashok Kumar Jain for selling property and Ashok Kumar Jain by registered sale-deed dated 9th of May, 2011 sold property of the trust to the appellants Narpat Singh and Shyam Kanwar. Another application/complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 Ashok Kumar before Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Jodhpur with the prayer to declare the sale-deed void. The applications/complaints were registered by the Assistant Commissioner as Case No. 1/2011 under Sections 31, 38 and 49 of the Act of 1959 and investigation started. During the course of investigation, appellants submitted their reply stating that the complainants are tenant and thus have no right to file such application/complaints. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 30th of April 2012 accepted the application and granted permission to Ashok Kumar and Sesaram to move application before the District Judge under Section 40 of the Act of 1959 and also to seek guidance/direction from the Court below in this matter. Thereafter, they filed an application before the learned Court below which was registered as Civil Misc. case No. 27/2012. Upon receiving notices, non-applicants filed reply thereto.

3. Learned Court below, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled three issues for determination and the parties led their evidence.

4. Learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and after discussing the evidence threadbare arrived at the conclusion that the shops which were sold by registered sale-deed dated 9th of May 2011 to the appellants are property of the Public Trust. It is also observed by the learned Court below that since sale-deed dated 09.05.2011 is null and void right from very inception, the Devasthan Department on its own is required to proceed for cancellation of sale-deed.

5. Mr. C.R. Jakhar, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the learned Court below has erred in not considering the facts and material available on record while passing the impugned order. It is contended by learned counsel that the respondents are not working trustees nor having any interest in the trust, as such, they have no right or locus to file application under Section 40 the Act of 1959. It is also contended by learned counsel that it is a settled principle of law that a registered document can be canceled only by filing a civil suit by paying proper court fees before a competent court having jurisdiction.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the findings recorded by learned Court below are based on sound appreciation of facts and material available on record and thus the same are not liable to be interfered with. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the disputed property belongs to a Public Trust and the same cou