The court ruled that the plaintiffs' suit was time-barred and lacked locus standi, reaffirming the finality of prior judgments regarding the nature of the trust and property.

Judgme nt

16/08/2021

Heard on admission.

This Civil First Appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short, 'the plaintiffs') against the judgment dated 14.12.2020 passed by ADJ No. 5, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 29/2020 (102/2020) titled Surendra Chouhan & Ors. Versus Prem Prakash Bhargav and others, whereby the application filed by the respondents-defendants (for short, 'the defendants') under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed.

Facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction under Section 9 , 59, 61, 63 and 65 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 , Section 31 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 , Order 7 Rule 1, Order 1 Rule 8 readwith Section 9 and 151 CPC against the defendants mentioning that Bahadur Pyare Lal and his brother Munshi Chiman Lal, sons of Pandit Heera Lal Bhargav were khudkasht Maalik of the suit property situated in Naya Nagar, Beawar. During his life time, Munshi Chiman Lal constructed a Dharamshala, Garden, water hut, cattle trough and dug a well, but subsequently he died. After his death, on 9.4.1932 his brother Pyare Lal, constituted a trust with regard to the aforesaid suit property and appointed himself as a trustee and manager. It was also mentioned in the trust deed dated 9.4.1932 that if Deewan Bahadur Pyare Lal Bhargav does not adopt any son during his life time, Raghuveer Prasad and Mahesh Prasad s/o Shri Sitaram Ji would operate the trust to achieve its charitable purposes and the trust property would devolve from one generation to another only as a trustee / manager of the trust property. In a suit no. 30/1942 tilted M/s. Mahesh Prasad Bhargav & Anr. Versus M/s. Mukat Bihari Lal Bhargav and others filed in the Court of District Judge, Province of Ajmer Merwara, the court below vide its judgment and decree dated 10.4.1943, declared Mahesh Prasad Bhargav and Raghuveer Prasad Bhargav jointly as trustees and manager of the trust constituted by Pandit Pyare Lal. Therefore, Raghuveer Prasad and Mahesh Prasad could not have been khudkasht Maalik of the trust property and they had no right to sell or to change the character of the trust property and / or to extinguish the right of the beneficiaries to use and occupy the trust property. Despite that, Mahesh Prasad Bhargav and Raghuveer Prasad Bhargav filed application no. 769 and 770/60 in the Court of the then SDO and officiating Collector (Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition), Beawar under Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 and ex-parte judgment dated 31.5.1965 came to be passed declaring the trust property as a private property / khudkasht property.

The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 readwith Section 151 CPC mentioning therein that as per the averments made in the plaint, the suit property had already been declared as khudkasht property on 31.5.1965, whereas the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2020 i.e. with a delay of 55 years, which was time barred in terms of Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It was also submitted that an application filed under Section 9 2 CPC in civil suit no. 35/1987 titled Shri Rajkumar Bhargav & Ors. Versus Shri Raghuveer Prasad Bhargav in the court of ADJ, Beawar in relation to the suit property was dismissed vide order dated 1.3.1996 and on the very same grounds the plaintiffs filed the suit, which was not maintainable. It was also submitted that pursuant to the judgment dated 31.5.1965 passed by SDO cum Collector under Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 in case no. 769 and 770/1960, public notice was published, but none of the beneficiary of the trust property submitted the objection. Therefore, now the beneficiaries of the trust have no right to raise the objection. It was also submitted that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit. It was also submitted tha