JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. This civil revision has been instituted against the order dated 15.9.2016 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No. 2, Kannauj, in Original Suit No. 01 of 2014, Smt. Meena Devi vs. Babu Ram.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Court below allowed the application 25 C2 and directed the plaintiff to implead the applicants as defendants.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that Meena Devi filed an original suit no. 1 of 2014 under Section 74 of the Indian Trust Act in the Court of District and Sessions Judge Kannauj stating therein that one Ram Prasad, who was the trustee and occupant of the properties A, B and C mentioned in the foot of the plaint, constructed a Shiv Mandir in village Balarpur, District Kannuaj, over the land of list “A” which was known as Mahadev Mandir. He also constructed Thakur Gi Temple and some other temples over the land of list B and vested the land of list “C” for the maintenance of temples made over the land of list A & B. He also constructed one room in the plot A & B. In this regard he executed a deed on 2.12.1959 and appointed Swami Ram Charan disciple Bhagwandas as the Sarvarakar (priest). The aforesaid Ram Charan died during the life time of Ram Prasad, therefore, he executed another deed on 29.4.1982 appointing Jageshwar Prasad (plaintiff's husband) as the Sarvarakar of the temple and also authorized him to appoint Sarvarakar of his choice. Apart from being appointed by Jageshwar Prasad the plaintiff is also his legal representative being his wife. Thus she has become Sarvarakar of the impugned trust. Jageshwar Prasad executed a will deed dated 8.2.2014 appointing the plaintiff as Sarvarakar and after their death their heirs by way of inheritance for the time immemorial.

4. After death of Jageshwar Prasad on 5.4.2015, on the basis of deed executed by him, the plaintiff became Sarvarakar. She was also given right to appoint Sarvarakar being legal representative of Jageshwar Prasad. Jageshwar Prasad had also constructed Dharmshala over the land of list A & B from the income of the property of list “C” and with his own income. The defendant has no concern with the property of list A, B & C. The defendant saying himself to brother of Jageshwar Prasad is not ready to get the name of the plaintiff mutated. The defendant Babu Ram, is not ready to get the name of the plaintiff recorded in the revenue record, therefore, it was prayed to appoint the plaintiff as Sarvarakar of the temple through Court. This Court has jurisdiction to try the suit hence it was prayed to appoint the plaintiff as Sarvarakar of the property A, B & C of the plaint.

5. During the pendency of the case, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was moved by Anil Srivastava and Shiv Nath stating that the suit is based on false and fabricated facts. The defendant is real brother in law (Devar) of the plaintiff. The temple was constructed by original trustee Ram Prasad and he had gifted his Bhumidhari property situated in the village Sahajhapur and Balarpur vide registred deed dated 2.12.1959. He had also executed an amendment agreement dated 29.4.1982 and appointed Jageshwar Prasad Katiyar his manager and trustee of the trust and also authorized him to appoint manager and trustee during his lifetime.

6. During lifetime of Jageshwar Prasad, he neither appointed any manager nor executed alleged deed dated 8.2.2014 in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged unregistered deed is forged and fictitious which bears no signature of Jageshwar Prasad. The plaintiff is not the sarvarakar of the impugned trust nor she can be.

7. Jageshwar Prasad had jointly executed an affidavit dated 8.9.2012 whereupon his original signature are present. Apart from that he had also signed on declaration as guarantor. The original signature is totally different from the signature that has been made on the alleged deed dated 8.2.2014. The plaintiff has no concern with the trust. She is not in possessio