Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that at the stage of granting leave to file a representative suit for a public trust, the court must only determine if a prima facie case exists regarding the public nature of the trust and necessity for judicial intervention, without adjudicating substantive rights.

JUDGMENT :

ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants and the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.1.2026, passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Etawah, in Misc. Case (Under Section 92 of C.P.C.) No. 103 of 2021 ( Ramchandra Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Ramtal and others Vs. Sushil Maheshwari since deceased and another ).

3. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.1 is a temple which is commonly known in the public at large as Shri Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj Mandir Ramtal, situated at village Aheripur, Pargana Bharthana, District Etawah (later referred as Temple). It is stated that it is very ancient temple. There is no information or knowledge of its establishment and by whom. The said temple is established for public uses for around hundred year ago. Normally, the Sarvarakar of the temple were Baba Bairagi. The succession has been transferred on the basis of Guru-chela principle. The plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 are Sadhu Sanyasi of Bairagi person, who does not having any domestic life. The plaintiff nos. 5 and 6 are also residents of village Ahirepur. (later referred to as said village).

4. It is stated that said building of the temple is constructed over a large tract of land, in front of which a very large pond also exists, which pond is the property of the temple, and both the temple and the pond are situated and existing over an area of about 5-6 (five-six) bighas. The temple and pond are situated in the said land and is recorded in the Revenue entry No. 396 , area 71 decimals, 199 M, area 1 acres and 12 decimals and 507, area 1 acres and 24 decimals, Gata No. 550 area 62 decimal. All the lands of the aforesaid four gatas is in the name of said temple. The name of plaintiff no.1/temple is continued to be recorded in the Khasra and Khatauni records of the Revenue Department, out of the total land comprised in the said gata numbers, the temple building and pond are constructed over 5-6 bighas of land and the remaining land is lying vacant nearby it. Apart from the lands of these gata numbers, one plot situated in the abadi area of village Aheripur, upon which two shops are constructed, is also the property of the temple.

5. It is stated that Sarvakar of plaintiff no.1/said temple were consistently an unmarried Sadhu Sanyasi Baba Bairagis and they have always remained the Sarvarahkar of Temple/ Plaintiff No. 1, but for the last several years, some persons having an evil intentions over the temple property, hence, one person, namely, Ram Swaroop son of Bhagwandas, who was a resident of Kanpur Nagar and carried on his business there and had no permanent residence in village Aheripur and only used to visit occasionally, developed malafide intentions regarding the temple and its property, and about 40 years ago, after the death of the then Sarvarakar Baba Bairagi, the said Ram Swaroop son of Bhagwandas, in conspiracy with the employees of the Revenue Department, got his name recorded as Sarvarakar of Plaintiff No. 1/temple in the concerned Khasra, Khatauni etc. after the death of Baba Bairagi Sarvarakar, whereas Ram Swaroop son of Bhagwandas was a married householder person, resided in Kanpur, and according to the tradition of the temple, since Ram Swaroop son of Bhagwandas was not a Baba Bairagi of the Bairagi sect, therefore he cou