An application for delay condonation requires 'sufficient cause' and cannot excuse gross negligence. Furthermore, a non-party lacks the standing to appeal a decree unless they can prove they are an 'aggrieved person' suffering direct and tangible legal prejudice from the judgment.

==================================================

J U D G M E N T

Heard on the question of admission.

This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24/09/2021 passed by Vth Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, District Mandsaur (M.P.) in Miscellaneous Judicial case (Civil) No. 6/2021, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30/01/2018 passed by Ist Civil Judge Class-II, Sitamau, Mandsaur Indore (M.P.) in RCSA 10A/2011, was affirmed.

Facts of the case, in short are as under :-

2. The plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking a declaration of ownership, permanent injunction, and delivery of possession against the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that Plaintiff No. 1 was an ancient religious Math, known as “Badamath,” established around 150 years ago during the rule of Bahadur Singh of Sitamau State. The Math, devoted to promoting Sanatan Dharma, owned various properties granted by the erstwhile ruler for religious purposes. The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1, Deepakgiri, was wrongly recorded as Mahant in the 1979-80 revenue records while he was still a minor and not a disciple of the then Mahant Dhangiri. They contended that Defendant No. 1 was married, practiced law, and was unfit to act as Mahant. He had allegedly sold parts of the Math’s land to Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 through registered sale deeds in 2010, which the plaintiffs sought to declare void, asserting that these transfers were unauthorized and detrimental to the Math’s interests.

3. The plaintiffs further stated that Defendant No. 1 had threatened to sell additional properties and use the proceeds for personal luxuries, prompting them to seek court intervention for protection of the Math’s assets. They argued that the Mahant held the property only in trust for the religious institution and had no personal ownership rights over it. Consequently, they prayed for a declaration of ownership in favor of the Math, a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property, and restoration of possession of the disputed lands.

4. In their written statement, Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 contended that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs had no relation with the Bada Math, which they described as a private family Math. They claimed that Defendant No. 1 Deepakgiri was the duly appointed Mahant and sole owner of all the Math’s properties by family tradition spanning over 300 years, wherein each Mahant was succeeded by his son or a relative. It was submitted that Defendant No. 1’s ancestors acquired the agricultural lands and houses from their own earnings, unconnected to any public religious trust. The defendants also produced evidence of Deepakgiri’s adoption by Mahant Dhangiri in 1972, a succession certificate issued in 1973 recognizing him as Dhangiri’s adopted son, and subsequent revenue entries and government certifications confirming his ownership.

5. Defendant No.4 supported the defense, and contended that no documentary evidence proved that the property was ever granted by the Sitamau ruler to the Math as a public endowment. It was stated that the monastery had always been managed by successive Mahants as their personal property, not as a public trust. The defendants emphasized that the plaintiffs had neither locus standi nor legal authority to challenge the ownership or transactions concerning the said property. They therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs, asse