Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. AGRAWAL, G. B. SINGH
BHAGAUTI PRASAD KHETAN - Appellant
Versus
LAXMINATHJI MAHARAJ - Respondents
FIRST APPEAL 52 Of 1978
Decided On : 03/13/1985
HINDU LAW - PUBLIC RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT - ALIENATION OF ENDOWED PROPERTIES - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS - LEGAL NECESSITY OR BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE - BURDEN OF PROOF - U. P. HINDU PUBLIC RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF DISSIPATION OF PROPERTIES) ACT, 1962 (U. P. ACT NO. 22 OF 1962), S. 7 - APPLICABILITY - PROPERTIES SITUATED IN UTTAR PRADESH BUT TEMPLE SITUATED OUTSIDE THE STATE.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed by the plaintiff, a worshipper of the deity, as next friend of the deity, challenging the validity of two sale deeds executed by the managing trustee of the deity, Bhagauti Prasad, in favor of the defendants, Purshottam Das and Radhey Shyam, and Chandi Prasad Rao, on the ground that they were executed without any authority, consideration, and necessity, and that they were not for the benefit of the estate. The defendants contended that the sale deeds were valid and that they were bona fide purchasers for value.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had the right to represent the deity as its next friend and that the suit was maintainable. It further held that the managing trustee had no power to alienate the endowed properties without the consent of the other Shebaits, and that the sale deeds were not executed for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. The court also held that the sale deeds were invalid for want of prior written sanction of the Commissioner under S. 7 of the U. P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had the right to represent the deity as its next friend and whether the suit was maintainable? 2. Whether the managing trustee had the power to alienate the endowed properties without the consent of the other Shebaits? 3. Whether the sale deeds were executed for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate? 4. Whether the sale deeds were invalid for want of prior written sanction of the Commissioner under S. 7 of the U. P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A worshipper of a Hindu deity has the right to represent the deity as its next friend and to file a suit on its behalf to protect its interests. 2. The managing trustee of a Hindu public religious endowment has no power to alienate the endowed properties without the consent of the other Shebaits. 3. An alienation of endowed properties by the managing trustee is not valid unless it is made for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. 4. The U. P. Hindu Public Religious Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Properties) Act, 1962 applies to all Hindu public religious institutions in Uttar Pradesh, irrespective of the location of the temple.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by the defendants and confirmed the decree of the trial court, which had declared the sale deeds to be invalid and ineffective.
( 1 ) THESE two connected appeals are against the judgment and decree dt. 25-10-1977 passed in O. S. No. 27 of 1964 by Civil Judge, Deoria
( 2 ) THE deity Laxminathji Maharaj, plaintiff No. 1 was enshrined in a temple of Ram Karan Das situated at Kasalu Jhunjhunu, district Jhunjhunu, State Rajasthan. Ram Bilas was son of Ram Karan Das. Ram Bilas and his five sons Liladhar, Basant Lal, Munna Lal, Chiranji Lal and Madan Lal and three minor grandsons Radha Ballabh, Bhagauti Prasad (deft. 1 and appellant of F. A. No. 52 of 1978) and Chandi Prasad through their guardians dedicated to the deity considerable properties situated at Deoria Uttar Pradesh and various other places, detailed in schedule A at the foot of the plaint by executing a deed of endowment on 1-2-1919. Ram Bilas managed the dedicated properties and affairs of the temple till his death in the year 1936. The following pedigree discloses relationship of Ram Bilas with the defendants first and fifth sets :
( 3 ) THERE are five sets of defendants. Bhagauti Prasad Khetan and 7 others constitute first set of the defendants. They along with defendants 13 to 17 are the descendants of Ram Bilas. Purshottam Das, defendant 9, Radhey Shyam, defendant No. 10 and Chandi Prasad Rao defendant 10a are defendants 2nd set. Purshottam Das and Radhey Shyam defendants 9 and 10 purchased one dedicated house at Deoria for Rs. 10,000/- and obtained a sale deed dt. 1-9-1964/18-9-1964. The suit was originally filed in connection with that sale deed. During pendency of the suit Chandi Prasad purchased another dedicated house situated at Deoria by obtaining sale deed dt. 21-6-1965 for Rs. 5,500/ -. He was therefore, subsequently impleaded as defendant 10a. These two houses are given in Schedule B annexed to the plaint. The two sale deeds were challenged in the suit on various grounds. The defendants Gajanand and 3 others constitute 3rd set. They are tenants of the house transferred to the defendants 2nd set. Narain Das defendant 13 has been described as defendant 4th set. He has been impleaded in the suit on the allegation that he is general attorney of Bhagauti Prasad Khetan defendant 1 and he is assisting Bhagauti Prasad Khetan in transferring endowed properties. The defendants 14 to 20 constitute 5th set. Smt Sushila Bai, Smt. Satya Bhama Bai and Smt. Ratna Devi defendants 14 to 16 are grand daughters of Ram Bilas and Smt. Ram Devi defendant 17 is widow of Chiranji Lal, one of the sons of Ram Bilas. It appears that they have been impleaded because they were parties to the litigation which went up to Rajasthan High Court and was finally decided by compromise dt. 31-3-1961. Ram Niwas Sultaniwala, Bhagirath Mal Banka and Beni Prasad defendants 18 to 20 were connected with the management of the endowment for some time.
( 4 ) ATMA Ram plaintiff 2 is a resident of Deoria Uttar Pradesh. He filed the suit as next friend of the deity plaintiff 1 and on his own behalf on the allegation that he is an original resident of Jhunjhunu and has been worshipping the idol and is a worshipper.
( 5 ) THE deed of endowment dt. 1-2-1919 provided among other things that L. Ram Bilas would be manager of the endowed property for his lifetime and the executants of the deed of endowment would with a reasonable time executed another deed providing for the future management of the endowed properties. It was also provided in the deed that in case the creators did not execute any such deed Ram Bilas will appoint a manager to look after the properties of the deity. The creators of the endowment did not execute any such deed nor Ram Bilas could appoint any manager to look after the properties of the deity after his death.
( 6 ) THE suit was filed on the allegations that after the death of Ram Bilas some of the creators and their heirs unlawfully assumed management of the endowed properties and thus dispute about the management arose between them with the result Seth Manna Lal and Seth Chandi Prasad filed Suit No
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
