Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA
Champa Lal son of Late Shri Chimna Ram – Appellant
Versus
Meetha Lal son of Shri Himmat Mal Ji – Respondent
Judgment :
REKHA BORANA, J.
1. The present second appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 08.10.1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bali in Civil Appeal (Decree) No.42/1986 (36/1982) whereby the regular first appeal as preferred by the appellant against judgment and decree dated 12.07.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Sirohi in Civil Original No.40/1979 stood dismissed. Vide judgment and decree dated 12.07.1982, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to decree the representative suit for eviction as preferred by the plaintiffs. The Court also proceeded on to pass a decree for mesne profit in favour of the plaintiffs for an amount of Rs.204/- for the period from 01.03.1978 to the date of institution of the suit.
2. Vide order dated 02.12.2003, while admitting the present appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed:
“(i) Whether the Courts below were right in not first determining the valuation of the temple property and proceeding to decide the whole matter without adverting to determine the question of bar under Section 29 of the Act?
(ii) Whether it was incumbent upon the Courts below to try the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding to deter
The court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the trust's classification and maintainability lies with the plaintiffs, especially under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
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....
Plaint under Section 92 CPC not rejected under Order VII Rule 11 where it discloses cause of action via fraud/breach allegations in public religious trust; limitation/mixed issues triable; no partial....
The court ruled that temple property cannot be alienated by trustees without obtaining necessary permissions and demonstrating community consent as per applicable law.
It is a settled position of law that availability of an alternate remedy cannot preclude jurisdiction of a writ Court.
Trustees of public charitable trusts do not require Charity Commissioner consent to file suits for recovering possession from trespassers, affirming their inherent rights as legal owners.
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
