Plaint under Section 92 CPC not rejected under Order VII Rule 11 where it discloses cause of action via fraud/breach allegations in public religious trust; limitation/mixed issues triable; no partial rejection; only plaint averments considered.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

Challenge, by way of present appeal has been laid to the order dated 04.01.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP No 238 of 2020 in Civil Suit No.5 of 2020, whereby the application under Order 7 Rules 11 and 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as “CPC” for short) filed by defendants No. 23, 24 (a) and 24 (b) has been dismissed.

2. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the application, has noticed that the plaintiffs filed Civil Suit under Section 92 of the CPC’, for settling a scheme for appointment of the trustees/management of temple Shri Jathia Devi, along with its landed property, the details of which find mentioned in the body of the Civil Suit.

The factual matrix:
3. The said Civil suit had been filed on the ground that Jathia Devi Temple had been constructed/established by Ex-Ruler (Raja Sahib) of Keonthal State, prior to 1871 AD. Shri Jathia Devi Temple and its landed properties are situated over the suit land. The Raja of Keonthal State was the absolute owner of the suit land and prior to 1871 AD, he had constructed the temple for public and religious purposes. The aforesaid temple is of local deity (Kulja) of residents of the adjoining villages. The Raja of Keonthal had also granted remission of land revenue, in respect of the aforesaid land, in favour of deity. One Arjun (predecessor-in-interest of defendants No. 1 to 22) was appointed as Pujari/Mohatmim of the aforesaid temple, and was authorized to arrange and manage the daily puja archana and functions relating to the deity, and also to look after the suit land. The said Arjun was required to account for income of temple and deposit the same in the accounts of the deity. It had been averred that there was breach of trust, and relief of removal of defendants No. 1 to 22, from the office of trusteeship of Shri Jathia Devi temple, to settle the scheme for proper management, administration, puja archana, ceremonies, various melas, religious fairs and day to day affairs of the deity/temple, namely, Shri Jathia Devi Ji Temple', had been sought. In addition to this, plaintiffs had also sought declaration that revenue entries, in favour of defendants No. 1 to 22, showing them owner in possession of the suit land, be declared as null and void. Consequently, it had been prayed that the sale deed dated 19.07.1986 be declared as null and void, with a prayer to direct defendants No. 23 and 24 to hand over the vacant possession of the land, i.e. subject matter of the sale deed. Defendants No 1 to 22 had also been sought to be directed to render proper accounts of the income and expenditure. Consequently, relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, against defendants No. 1 to 24, restraining them permanently from digging, excavating soil and stones, selling, alienating, encumbering, transferring or changing the nature of the suit land, in any manner, had been sought.

4. The learned Single Judge had also noticed that the pleadings of the plaintiffs would go on to show that the said suit had been filed, mainly on the ground that predecessor-in-interest, of defendants No. 1 to 22 was Pujari/Muhatmin, and defenda