Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
Shri Shamaram Mahant - Appellant
Vs.
Ram Dayal Chela Late Shri Ram Narainji - Respondent
Civil First Appeal No. 336/2008
Decided On : 09-04-2025
(A) Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 - Sections 2(11), 2(13), 2(14), 3, and 4 - Dispute over property ownership of Ramsnehi Sampradaya - Plaintiffs sought declaration of property as belonging to the Math and injunction against defendants claiming ownership - Court found that the Mahant had no transferable rights over the trust property, affirming the status of the Sampradaya as a public trust. (Paras 8, 10, 31)
(B) Burden of Proof - The burden lies on the party claiming ownership to establish their case; failure to do so results in dismissal of claims. (Paras 6, 10)
(C) Authority of Mahant - The Mahant's role is custodial, with no authority to sell or transfer trust property, as established by tradition and law. (Paras 13, 31)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of properties associated with Ramsnehi Sampradaya, asserting that the Mahant had no right to sell or transfer these properties, which were established as trust property. The defendants contended that the Mahant had such rights and that properties were individual assets.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the Ramsnehi Sampradaya is a public trust and that the Mahant had no authority to transfer trust property, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issues included the ownership of the suit property, the authority of the Mahant to transfer property, and the validity of sales made by the Mahant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Mahant's authority is limited to custodianship and that any transfer of trust property without proper authority is void. The court emphasized the importance of tradition and legal definitions of public trust.
Result: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit.
Judgment :
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
1. Heard the parties and perused the records as well as written submissions.
2. The plaintiff/respondent nos. 1 and 2 had brought civil original suit no. 77/1997 against the appellants and defendants / respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. The suit has been decreed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.5.2008 by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner.
3. In the civil suit, the plaintiffs had prayed for declaration that the suit property mentioned in Schedule “Ka” is property of the Math and Ramdham Mandir and plaintiff no. 1 being Mahant of the Math was owner of the property as Sewadaar. The plaintiffs further sought for injunction against the respondents not to make obstruction in respect of the suit property claiming themselves to be owner thereof; if the defendants claim their possession or possession of the defendant is found on the suit property, a decree for recovery of possession has been sought for. Schedule “Ka” of the plaint would reveal that the suit property has been identified by name and boundary.
4. Bereft of factual details in the pleadings of the parties, the real dispute lies in a very narrow compass. There is no dispute that the parties are followers of Ram Sanehi Sampradaya, a cult which worships their gurus and put their photographs/idols in a temple. It is also not disputed that the main seat (gaddi) of the Sampradaya is at Village Sinthal in the District of Bikaner. It is also not disputed that Late Chaukas Ram Ji was Dada guru of the Sampradaya. Chaukas Ram Ji selected and appointed late Ram Narayan Ji as Mahant of the seat who remained as such during 1998 to 2005.
According to plaintiffs, plaintiff no. 1 Ram Dayal Ji who was disciple of Ram Narayan Ji was selected as successor Mahant by Ram Narayan Ji. Since Ram Dayal Ji was of immature age, Late Bhagwat Das, the guru of respondent nos. 1 to 4 was appointed as care taker (Adhikari) to look after the affairs till Ram Dayal Ji get maturity. On Ramdayal Ji getting maturity, Bhagwat Das Ji performed the traditional rituals of Chadar Poshi etc. and made Ram Dayal Ji as Mahant.
According to the defendants, plaintiff Ram Dayal Ji was never Mahant of the Gaddi, rather, he was just a Manager and Bhagwat Das was real Mahant selected and appointed by Ram Narayan Ji.
According to the plaintiffs, only the existing Mahant who was also Guru, was competent to select his successor whereas according to the defendants unless all the followers accept any nominee for Mahantship as their guru, there was no question of assigning him the seat of Mahant. Plaintiff no.1 was never recognized as Guru by other followers, rather, Bhagwat Das was appointed as Mahant with the approval of the followers.
According to plaintiff, there are 9 properties mentioned in the Schedule-”Ka” of the plaint situated at different places. Property No. 1 Ramdham at Sinthal was main seat, property no. 2 Bada Ramdwara at Bikaner was residence of the Mahant, property no. 3 Anand Ashram at Rani Bazar, Bikaner was a Hospital, Property No. 4 Ram Badi at Bikaner was of the trust which was illegally sold by Bhagwat Das who had no authority to sell the property of the Sampradaya. The plaintiff asserted that before Bhagwat Das, property of the Sampradaya was never sold by any Mahant. Property No. 5 known as Shri Kolyat Ji was a Dharmshala, property no. 6 a house and shop at Karanpur was purchased in 1929, property no. 7 Mateli Ki Dukan was sold in the year 1964 by the Mahant, who was not competent to sell it, property no. 8 at Bada Bazar, Bikaner was property of the Trust which was allegedly gifted by Ram Narayan Ji to Bhagwat Das and Bhagwat Das sold it to Nawal Ram in 1971, property no. 9 a house at Kesaripura was also sold years back.
According to the defendants, except the property at Sinthal, other properties were not of the Sampradaya. In fact other properties were individual properties of the followers. In a family settlement, those properties were partitioned and allotted to the r
The Mahant of a public religious trust has no transferable rights over trust property, which must be preserved for the benefit of the trust.
The judgment establishes that properties designated in a Compromise Decree as trust properties cannot be claimed as absolute ownership by trustees, emphasizing fiduciary duties.
The court established that a sale deed transferring property of a deity without proper authorization is invalid, making recovery suits unmaintainable if the deity is not a party.
The court ruled that temple property cannot be alienated by trustees without obtaining necessary permissions and demonstrating community consent as per applicable law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the properties were registered as Trust property under the Bombay Public Trust Ac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff failed to prove his title over the suit property and the suit was not maintainable as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Pub....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
