HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 493/2025

Shri Salasar Chaitable Trust, Mandi Dabwali

----Appellant

Versus

Gajanand

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K.Agarwal Sr. Adv.with

Mr. Shubham Kumar Sharma

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

03/12/2025

;g flfoy f}rh; vihy vihykFkhZ@oknh }kjk /kkjk 100 flfoy izfØ;k

lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 29-07-2025 ds fo:) is'k dh xbZ gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ,oa fMØh fnukad 30-05-2019 ls oknh dk okn fujLr fd, tkus ds vkns'k dh iqf"V

dh xbZ gSA

vihy dh xzkg~;rk ds lEcU/k esa vihykFkhZ@oknh dks lquk x;kA

vihykFkhZ@oknh ,d psfjVscy VªLV gS vkSj bl VªLV }kjk izfroknh

pEiknsoh ds fo:) ,d okn foØ;&i= iathd`r djus] mn~?kks"k.kk ,oa LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk ;g vuqrks"k pkgk x;k fd izfrokfnuh pEik nsoh fookfnr lEifr dk foØ;&i= oknh ds i{k esa iathd`r djok,] oknxzLr lEifRr ds lEcU/k esa oknh ds LoRo dh ?kks"k.kk dh tkos rFkk izfroknhx.k dks ikcan fd;k tk, fd os lEifRr ds mi;ksx&miHkksx esa gLr{ksi ugha djsa rFkk lEifRr dks izHkkfjr ugha

djsA

oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd ewy izfrokfnuh us mDr okn

dk oknksRrj izLrqr fd;k] fopkj.k U;k;ky; us fook|d la[;k&1 yxk;r 6 fufeZr fd,A i{kdkjksa dh lk{; iw.kZ gksus ds mijkUr] okn esa dkbs Z vfHkopu ugha gksus ds

ckotwn izkFkZuk&i= ij fook|d la[;k&6&, bl vk'k; dk fufeZr fd;k x;k fd oknh lkyklj pSfjVscy ifCyd VªLV gS tks nsoLFkku foHkkx esa iathd`r ugha gksus ds dkj.k bl okn dh lquokbZ djokus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS rFkk bl ekeys esa U;k;ky; us dsoy blh fook|d dks fu.khZr fd;k rFkk jktLFkku ifCyd VªLV ,DV dh /kkjk 29 ds izko/kkuksa ds varxZr VªLV dk iathdj.k vko';d ekurs gq, viathd`r VªLV dh vksj ls izLrqr okn dks iks"k.kh; ugha ekuk ,oa okn fujLr dj fn;kA blh izdkj vihyh; U;k;ky; us Hkh blh vk/kkj ij mudh vihy fujLr dj nh tcfd vihyh; U;k;ky; esa vihy ds yfEcr jgus ds nkSjku mDr VªLV dks os nsoLFkku foHkkx esa iathd`r Hkh djok pqd s Fks rFkk iathdj.k lEcU/kh nLrkost vfHkys[k ij ys vk, FksA mudk rdZ gS fd ewy izfrokfnuh us lafonk dks vkSj vU; rF;ksa dks Lohdkj fd;k rFkk bl dkj.k okn dks vkns'k 12 fu;e 6 lhihlh ds izko/kkuksa ds vk/kkj ij Hkh fMØh dj fn;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk tks fd ugha fd;k x;kA mudk rdZ gS fd fo}ku vihy U;k;ky; us VªLV ds vihy ds nkSjku iathdj.k gksus ds mijkar Hkh okn dks iks"k.kh; ugha ekukA mudk rdZ gS fd ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us bl lEcU/k esa U;kf;d fofu'p; ik'oZukFk tSu eafnj&cuke&izse nkl ds fof/kd izfrfuf/kx.k ¼2009½ 3 vkjlhvkj ¼flo½ 133 esa fuEu fof/kd fLFkfr izfrikfnr dh gSA This Court is further of the view that the irregularity, if any, on account of non-registration of the Trust at the time of institution of the suit stood cured with the registration of the Trust. Said registration certificate is taken on record by allowing application under Order 41 Rule 27 filed by the appellant. Since the suit continues even during the pendency of appeal and the bar under Section 29 of the Ace was only against the hearing and final decision of the suit and not against the institution of the suit itself, the said bar cannot now stand in the way of appellant-plaintiff at this stage in the present appeal in getting the decree for eviction against the defendants. Since on other issues the findings of facts have been given against the defendants and there is no reason available with this Court to vary those findings, herefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned finding o the courts below on issue no. 4 and pass the decree of eviction against the defendants.

mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd fof/k dh bl fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, vihy U;k;ky; dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vikLr djrs gq, okn dks iks"k.kh; ekudj lHkh fook|dksa dks fu.khZr fd, tkus gsrq izdj.k dks izfrizsf"kr fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd mDr VªLV Mcokyh ftyk fglkj gfj;k.kk jkT; esa iathd`r gS rFkk ml ij jktLFkku ifCyd VªLV ,DV ds izko/kku ykxw gh ugha gksrs gSaA lkFk gh mudk ;g Hkh rdZ gS fd U;k;ky; dks lHkh fook|dksa ij fu.kZ; djuk Fkk tk