Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sunita Yadav, J.
Prakashveer Sharma (Mr.) & Others v. Murti Shri Dwarikadheesh Maharaj Virajman Mandir Thakur Dwarikadhieeshji, Morar, Gwalior & Another
First Appeal No. 123 of 2002 (Gwalior): First Appeal No. 123 of 2002 (Gwalior): against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2002 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 85- A/1994; Decided on 18.4.2023.
(1) Order -- effect -- order of interim nature -- set aside -- not binding -- otherwise also, order of interim nature is not binding in respect of question of maintainability of any suit. [Para 20]
(2) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S.11 -- principle of res-judicata -- applicability -- suit in respect of right to manage affairs of temple filed by registered Society -- another suit filed by Trust -- Society registered prior to Trust -- both suits tried together -- suit of Society decreed -- suit of Trust dismissed and attained finality -- finding recorded in suit of Trust shall operate as res judicata. AIR 1997 SC 3760 referred to. [Para 22]
(3) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- S. 4(3) -- creation of Trust -- validity -- person who entrusted property to Trust was not owner of property -- creation of trust on application of such person not in accordance with law. [Para 22]
(4) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- S. 36 -- applicability of provisions of Act -- managing Society of temple registered on 26.4.1980 -- Trust created on 23.7.1981 -- Society was constituted prior to Trust -- Society looking after affairs of temple -- it will be deemed to be a Trust -- provisions of Public Trusts Act will not apply. 1976 JLJ 465, 1991 JLJ 93 and 1983 JLJ 469 referred to. [Paras 23 to 28]
(5) Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (M. P.) -- S. 7 -- M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 -- Ss. 2(4) and 4 -- Society registered prior to Trust and looking after affairs of temple -- status of Society -- it will be deemed to be a Trust. [Para 24]
(6) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- Ss. 2(4) and 4 -- Trust -- Society registered under M. P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 prior to registration of Trust and looking after affairs of temple -- will be deemed to be a Trust. [Para 24]
(7) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- S. 32 -- bar of section 32 -- applicability -- suit by registered Society looking after affairs of temple -- bar of section 32 will not hit suit of Society. [Para 25]
(8) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- S. 4 -- right to create Trust -- person who is not owner of property -- has no right to create Trust -- Trust created by such person is vitiated. [Para 30]
(9) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- S. 8 -- civil suit -- jurisdiction -- civil Court can always see whether provisions of particular Act have been complied before passing of order -- argument that trial Court exercised powers beyond its jurisdiction not sustainable. [Para 31]
(10) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- S. 8 -- maintainability of civil suit -- Trust not made party -- suit filed against defendants who have tried to interfere in management of Committee -- agrument that suit is not maintainable is not sustainable -- even otherwise, suit filed by Trust has already been dismissed -- trial Court has not committed any error in deciding suit. [Para 32]
¼1½ vkns'k & çÒko & varfje çd`fr dk vkns'k & vikLr fd;k x;k & vkc)dj ugÈ & vU;Fkk Òh] fdlh okn ds pyus ;¨X; g¨us d¢ ç'u d¢ fo"k; esa varfje çd`fr dk vkns'k vkc)dj ugÈ gksrkA ¼iSjk 20½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & èkkjk 11 & iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar & ykxw g¨uk & eafnj d¢ dk;Zdyki dk çcaèk djus d¢ vfèkdkj d¢ fo"k; esa jftLVªhÑr l¨lkbVh }kjk okn çLrqr fd;k x;k & ,d vU; okn U;kfl;¨a }kjk çLrqr fd;k x;k & U;kl ls iwoZ l¨lkbVh jftLVªhÑr & n¨u¨a oknksa dk fopkj.k ,d lkFk fd;k x;k & l¨lkbVh dk okn fMØh fd;k x;k & U;kl dk okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k ,oa vafre g¨ x;k & U;kl ds okn esa vfÒfyf[kr fu"d"kZ iwoZ U;k; d¢ :i esa çofrZr g¨xkA ,vkbvkj 1997 ,llh 3760 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 22½
¼3½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 4¼3½ & U;kl dk l`tu & fofèkekU;rk & ftl O;fä us U;kl d¨ laifÙk l©aih og laifÙk dh Lokeh ugÈ Fkh & ,sls O;fä d¢ vkosnu ij U;kl dk l`tu fofèk d¢ vuqlkj ugÈA ¼iSjk 22½
¼4½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 36 & vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk ykxw g¨uk & eafnj dh çcaèk lfefr 26-4-1980 d¨ jftLVªhÑr & U;kl 23-7-1981 d¨ l`ftr & U;kl ls iwoZ l¨lkbVh dk xBu g¨ pqdk Fkk & l¨lkbVh eafnj d¢ dk;Zdyki dh ns[k&js[k dj jgh Fkh & mls U;kl le>k tk,xk & y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk ykxw ugÈ g¨axsA 1976 ts,yts 465] 1991 ts,yts 93 rFkk 1983 ts,yts 469 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23 ls 28½
¼5½ l¨lkbVh jftLVªhdj.k vfèkfu;e] 1973 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 7 & e-ç- y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 & èkkjk 2¼4½ rFkk 4 & U;kl ls iwoZ l¨lkbVh jftLVªhÑr ,oa eafnj d¢ dk;Zdyki dh ns[k&js[k dj jgh Fkh & l¨lkbVh dh gSfl;r & mls U;kl le>k tk,xkA ¼iSjk 24½
¼6½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 2¼4½ rFkk 4 & U;kl & U;kl d¢ jftLVªhdj.k ls iwoZ e-ç- l¨lkbVh jftLVªhdj.k vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu l¨lkbVh jftLVªhÑr ,oa eafnj d¢ dk;Zdyki dh ns[k&js[k dj jgh Fkh & mls U;kl le>k tk,xkA ¼iSjk 24½
¼7½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 32 & èkkjk 32 dk otZu & ykxw g¨uk & eafnj d¢ dk;Zdyki dh ns[k&js[k djus okyh jftLVªhÑr l¨lkbVh }kjk okn & èkkjk 32 dk otZu l¨lkbVh d¢ okn d¨ vkgr ugÈ djsxkA ¼iSjk 25½
¼8½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 4 & U;kl l`ftr djus dk vfèkdkj & tks O;fä laifÙk dk Lokeh ugÈ & mls U;kl l`ftr djus dk dksbZ vfèkdkj ugÈ & ,sls O;fä }kjk l`ftr U;kl nwf"kr gSA ¼iSjk 30½
¼9½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 8 & flfoy okn & vfèkdkfjrk & flfoy U;k;ky; lnSo ;g ns[k ldrk gS fd vkns'k ikfjr djus ls iwoZ ml fof'k"V vfèkfu;e d¢ micaèk¨a dk vuqikyu fd;k x;k gS ;k ugÈ & ;g rdZ iqf"V djus ;¨X; ugÈ fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; us viuh vfèkdkfjrk ls ijs 'kfä ç;qDr dhA ¼iSjk 31½
¼10½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 8 & flfoy okn pyus ;¨X; g¨uk & U;kl d¨ i{kdkj ugÈ cuk;k x;k & okn çfroknhx.k d¢ fo#) çLrqr fd;k x;k t¨ l¨lkbVh d¢ çcaèku esa gLr{ksi dk ç;kl dj jgs Fks & ;g rdZ iqf"V djus ;¨X; ugÈ gS fd okn pyus ;¨X; ugÈ & vU;Fkk Òh] U;kl }kjk çLrqr okn igys gh [kkfjt fd;k tk pqdk gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us okn dk fofu'p;u djus esa d¨Ã =qfV ugÈ dhA ¼iSjk 32½
JUDGMENT
1. Present first appeal has been filed under section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2002 passed by Third Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 85A/1994, whereby civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed.
2. The facts in brief to decide the present appeal are that a civil suit was filed by deity through the Society registered under M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the society). It is the case of the plaintiff that one temple in the name of Murti Shri Dwarikadheesh Ji Maharaj is situated on Gandhi Road, Morar, Gwalior. The deity is situated in a very big compound and the temple consists of residential portion and shops. As per plaintiff, the temple is being managed by one committee which is registered as Murti Shri Dwarikadheesh Ji Maharaj and which was registered on 24.4.1980. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the temple was constructed prior to 100 years of filing of suit by Seth Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal. The main temple also consist of statue of various other gods and goddesses. During the life time of Seth Kanhaiyalal, the affairs of the temple were conducted by a committee and thereafter on 29.6.1926, for the first time the office bearer of the committee were elected and thereafter, on 28.10.1930, election took place wherein Shri Laxminarayan was appointed as president and Babu Parmeshwar Dayal Shrivastava was elected as Secretary. It is further submitted that thereafter the affairs of the temple were being looked after by the committee as per the Will of late Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal.
3. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the committee used to looked after the property and in furtherance thereof various civil works were also done by the committee in the temple, details of which are mentioned in the plaint. The father in law of defendant No.2 namely Brajnarayan and mother in law namely Bhuri Bai encroached upon the temple, therefore, one civil suit was filed by the committee against Brajnarayan and Bhuri Bai which was registered as Civil Suit No. 646/1949. The said suit was filed by the committee and in the said civil suit it was found that Brajnarayan and Bhuri Bai have no relation with the temple and they have encroached upon the temple and its premises. It is further pleaded that Brajnarayan and Bhuri Bai were declared as encroacher vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.1953. In compliance of said judgment and decree, execution was filed in which Brajnarayan and Bhuri Bai admitted their status to be tenant, however, they requested that they may be kept as Pujari in the temple so that they may earn their livelihood. In execution proceedings, both Brajnarayan and Bhuri Bai submitted affidavit as Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 in which they admitted their status and accordingly the execution proceedings were disposed of.
4. The plaintiff further pleaded that looking to the management of the temple, the committee was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 26.4.1980. The defendants by suppressing material facts, executed one forged and fabricated Trust on 24.7.1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) and got the same registered under Public Trust Act. It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the creator of Trust was Gulab Bai who herself was not the owner and therefore, was incompetent to create a Trust under section 5 & 6 of Indian Trust Act. It is further pleaded that since the temple has already been registered under Societies Act, 1973, therefore, the same could not have been again registered under the provisions of M.P. Public Trust Act. It is further pleaded that no notice was served under on the plaintiff society regarding registration of Trust. Therefore, it is clear that the Trust has been fraudulently created. Consequently, the suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking the decree to the effect that the plaintiff committee may be declared to manage the affairs of the temple and t
The court emphasized that the burden of proof regarding the trust's classification and maintainability lies with the plaintiffs, especially under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
A society must substantiate ownership to claim exemption under the Trust Act; the absence of title negates jurisdiction to register the public trust.
The court emphasized the necessity of establishing a clear and substantive interest and status of representation in public trust matters under Section 92 CPC to qualify for leave to sue.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the properties were registered as Trust property under the Bombay Public Trust Ac....
The character of a temple as public or private is determined by its use for public worship and community management, not solely by registration status.
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
