Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 818
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.L. Anand, J.
Din Dial - Appellant
Versus
Jain Bans - Respondents
Regular First Appeal No. 329 of 1979.
Decided On : 31 July, 2000
For the Appellant :Mr. D.R. Mahajan, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate.
Headnote:
Trust Property - Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure - [Section 92] - The judgment discusses the application of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a case involving a dispute over the management and ownership of a temple property. The court analyzed the evidence to determine whether the property in question was a trust property meant for religious and charitable purposes and attached to the temple. The court emphasized the requirement for strong and clear evidence to establish a public trust and the intention to create a trust for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving the dedication or endowment of property as a trust and the need for evidence indicating the purpose of the trust when it was created. The court also considered the succession of ownership and possession of the property, as well as the validity of a will executed in favor of the defendant, in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging breach of trust by the trustee of a temple property. The trial Court decided against the plaintiffs, holding that the suit property was not a trust property meant for religious and charitable purposes and was not attached to the temple.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decided against the plaintiffs on the key issue of whether the suit property was a trust property meant for religious and charitable purposes and attached to the temple. The court held that there was a lack of evidence to establish the creation of a public trust and the intention to create a trust for public purposes. The court also considered the succession of ownership and possession of the property, as well as the validity of a will executed in favor of the defendant, in reaching its decision.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the permission granted to the plaintiffs to file the suit, the locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit, the details of the property attached to the temple, the nature of the suit property as a trust property, the legality and validity of a land sale, the status of a purchaser, and the appointment and duties of the temple's manager.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for strong and clear evidence to establish a public trust and the intention to create a trust for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving the dedication or endowment of property as a trust and the need for evidence indicating the purpose of the trust when it was created. The court also considered the succession of ownership and possession of the property, as well as the validity of a will executed in favor of the defendant, in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court, upholding the trial Court's decision against the plaintiffs and finding no merit in the appeal.
R.L. Anand, J. - Unsuccessful plaintiffs have filed the present Regular First Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1978, passed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants as prayed for.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present appellants filed the present suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for the reliefs mentioned below :-
(a) Defendant No. 1 be removed as trustee of Shiv Mandir Dholbaha, and the property that vests in the Shiv Mandir;
(b) A new trustee be appointed in place of defendant No. 1;
(c) Defendant No. 1 be directed to render accounts of the income of the trust property and to hand over the income of the trust;
(d) Defendant Nos. 1, 2 to 5 be directed to deliver possession of the trust property held by them to the new trustee that may be appointed by the learned counsel; and
(e) A scheme be settled for the management and control of the trust property so that the property and its income may be realised, and used for charitable and religious purposes.
3. It may be mentioned here that the suit was instituted at the first instance in the Court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 9.9.1977. After granting necessary permission under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned District Judge transferred the case for disposal to the Court of Senior Sub Judge.
4. The case set up by the plaintiffs before the trial Court was that they are the residents of village Dholbaha, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur and like other lacs of persons are worshippers and Sewaks of temple known as Shiv Mandir, situated in the abadi of village Dholbaha. The aforesaid Shiv Mandir is very old and is of great historical importance. The temple was constructed a number of centuries ago and the rulers for the time being and the other worshippers of the deity in the temple, have been donating land and immovable property to the Mandir for the purpose of charitable and religious nature and the property vests in the temple and the income from the land and the property to be used for religious and charitable purposes. Mahant Kurkshetar Gir was the Mahant and Manager of the Shiv Mandir in question and the entire property owned by Mandir was managed by him as trustee. He used the income for religious and charitable purpose. After the death of Mahant Kurkshetar Gir in the year 1966, a dispute arose between Jai Bans defendant No. 1 and Dev Gir defendant No. 3. Both of them claimed to be Mahants and trustees of the temple. There was litigation between them and unfortunately neither of them cared to manage the temple and the property owned by the Mandir for religious and charitable purposes. Defendant No. 1 claims to be lawful Mahant and trustee of the property attached to it. He does not reside at village Dholbaha and is not managing the property of the Mandir in a faithful manner. He has been getting the income of the land owned by the Mandir but is not utilising the same for religious and charitable purposes. He uses the income for his own purpose. Defendant No. 1 has now started claiming that the entire property attached to the Mandir is his property and he is entitled as owner to use the income for his own purpose and to alienate the property in any manner he likes. He has appointed defendant No. 2 as his Mukhtiar-e-am. So Much so defendant No. 1 has sold 21 Kanals 19 marlas of land bearing khasra number 3252, to defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and has put the vendees in possession of the same. These sales are clearly unlawful and void as defendant No. 1 has no authority in law on any ground to effect the sales which are clearly without consideration and necessity. The Mandir is not bound by the said sales as the land vests in the Mandir. The defendant No. 1 has committed breach of trust and it is necessary for the purposes of the trust to file the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. In these circumstances, it
