The court ruled that without proving the execution of a Will, a public trust cannot be established under Section 92 CPC, impacting the jurisdiction for its application.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri I. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists and Dr. R. S. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Virendra Bhatt for the respondents.

2. Under challenge is an order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the District Judge, Ayodhya in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.32 of 1994 whereby an application moved by the respondents under section 92 CPC has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has assailed the order impugned on three grounds:

(i) In order to allow an application under section 92 CPC, the Court must be satisfied that the application in question relates to a public trust and in absence of any cogent finding on this regard an application cannot be allowed.

(ii) It is also urged that in the instant case the property which is said to belong to the deity was actually the personal property of Mahant Jaikrishna Achari who died on 14.09.1959 and since then the property has remained with the revisionists and he continued to deal with the same for the benefit of a private temple made by Late Mahant Jaikrishna Achari. Since the temple and the property was the personal property of Mahant Jaikrishna Achari, hence there was no element of public trust, hence the application could not have been allowed.

(iii) Even otherwise the case set up by the respondents was based on an alleged Will dated 27.06.1959 said to have been executed by Mahant Jaikrishna Achari by which it was stated that a trust was created and the properties were dedicated to the deity. However, the fact remains that the said Will was never proved by the trust or the trustees, hence in absence of any proof of the said Will, it could not be said that the temple and the properties vested with the public trust. It was also pointed out that Mahant Jaikrishna Achari in his life time had contested litigation against the respondents (through their predecessor in interest) and at no point of time the property could be given to such persons who were already inimicable with Mahant Jaikrishna Achari during his life time and for the said reason the findings recorded by the District Judge Ayodhya are patently erroneous and cannot be sustained, accordingly the revision deserves to be allowed.

4. Dr. R. S. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent had filed an application under section 92 CPC wherein it was clearly stated that Mahant Jaikrishna Achari had executed his last registered Will dated 27.06.1959 and upon the death of Mahant Jaikrishna Achari, the properties vested with the deity of Sri Ram Janki and the same were being managed by the trust. The revisionists can not claim individual rights in the properties. The temple is a public temple where the public at large comes for darshan and since the revisionists were alienating the properties belonging to the temple deity and the trust, hence the application under section 92 CPC was moved and noticing the facts and circumstances the District Judge has allowed the application and such an order cannot be said to be bad either in law nor it can be said that it suffers from any jurisdictional error, accordingly the revision deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, Dr. Pandey has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust and others , (2020) 4 SCC 321 and Swami Shivshankar Giri Chella Swami and another Vs. Satya Gyan Niketan and another , (2017) 4 SCC 771 .

5. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

6. The facts that emerge