Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Shamaram Mahant And Ors vs Ram Dayal Chela And Ors on 9 April, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:15405]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 336/2008
1. Shri Shamaram Mahant, aged 57 years
2. Shri Navalram, aged 59 years
Both Chela of Late Bhagwant Dass, R/o Anand Ashram, Rani
Bazar, Bikaner.
3. Legal representatives of deceased Shri Bhagtiram, Chela Atma
Ram, Shri Ram Prasad Ramsnehi Chela, Shri Mohan Ram Ji, aged
37 years, R/o Bada Ramdwara, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.
4. Shri Sahiram Ji Chela Shri Harsukhdasji, aged, 55 years, R/o
Anand Ashram, Rani Bazar, Bikaner.
5. Shri Mangalaram Chela Shri Ramji Dasji, aged 76 years, R/o
Anand Ashram, Rani Bazar, Bikaner.
6. Legal representative of deceased Smt. Sonadevi wd/o
Hariram, Swaru Ram @ Swaran Kumar adopted son of Hari Ram
aged 46 years, R/o Near Jail Sadar Bikaner, at present residing
at Prathana Bungalow, Opposite Ambedkar Hall, Saraspura,
Ahmedabad.
7. Suraj Kala Bhandar through Smt. Kamla, aged 63 years, R/o
Bada Bazar, Bikaner.
8. Legal Representatives of deceased Smt. Champadevi wd/o
Ramdas Sonar through
8/1 Shri Jaswant S/o Dulichand, aged 47 yrs
8/2 Shri Anand S/o Dulichand, aged 45 yrs
8/3 Shri Vijaya S/o Dulichand, aged 42 yrs Residents of Tulsi
Shyam Flats, Navavai, Ahmedabad - 13
8/4 Shri Suresh S/o Sheoratan, aged 45 yrs, R/o Sector 7-A,
Block No. C-3, Nirnaya Nagar, Ahmedabad- 81
9. Peeti Automobiles through Selesh, aged 30 years, Rani Bazar,
Bikaner.
10. Shri Rameshwar Prasad S/o Shri Jetharam, aged 68 years,
R/o Sinthal (Bikaner).
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (2 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]
1. Ram Dayal Chela Late Shri Ram Narainji, Ramsnehi Sadhu,
R/o Sinthal, Bada Ramdwara, Sonaron Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
2. Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal, Tehsil & District Bikaner.
3. Shri Jagdish Ram
4. Shri Tulsi Ram
Both Chela of Late Bhagwant Dass, R/o Anand Ashram, Rani
Bazar, Bikaner.
5. Legal representatives of deceased Shri Ramji, Chela Keshav
Das, Shri Madhavram (Madhodass) Chela Late Shri Mohanram Ji,
Village Nokha, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sohan lal Jain.
Mr. Abhinav Jain.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit.
Mr. Prashant Tatia.
Mr. Manish Bhunwal.
Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit.
Mr. Shailendra Kumar.
Mr. Raju Singh Bhati for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC.
A. Cases referred by the appellants:-
1. Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs Ashutosh Agnihotri [2011 AIR
SCW 688].
2. Rangammal Vs Kuppuswami & Anr - (2011 (4) AIR SCW
3428).
3. Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal (Civil Appeal No.5798-
5799/2008), decided on 23.09.2008.
4. Om Prakash & Ors. Vs Ram Kumar & Ors. [AIR 1991 SC
409].
5. State Bank of India Vs Ajay Kumar Sood [2023 (7) SCC
282].
6. Central Board of Trustees Vs Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd.-
[2018 (8) SCC 443].
7. Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs Satya Chorone Requitte (AIR
1979 SC 1682).
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (3 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]
8. Sital Das Vs Sant Ram - [1954 AIR SC 606].
9. Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi &
Ors. [AIR 2010 SC 475].
10. Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. Vs Ugrasen (D) by LRS & Ors.
[2010 AIR SC 2210].
11. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs Randhir Singh [2010 AIR
SCW 3308]
12. Dilboo Vs Dhanraji [2000 (7) SCC 702].
13. Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji Vs Maniben Jagmalbhai [2022
(12) SCC 128]
14. State of Uttrakhand Vs Mandir Sri Laxman - [S.C.- Civil
Appeal No.4096/2008]
15. AIR 1992 P&H 288- Mahant Amar Das Chela Mahant Jai Ram
Dass Vs Shiromani Gurudwara Parbhandak Committee.
16. AIR 1981 SC 1878- Math Sauna Vs Kedar Nath.
17. AIR 1987 SC 2179 - Vinod Kumar Arora Vs Smt. Surjit
Kaur.
18. AIR 1986 DELHI 94 - Mahipalpur Co. Op Society Vs Smt.
Prabhati.
19. AIR 1968 SC 1032- Gurcharan Prasad Vs P. Krishnanand Giri.
20. AIR 1966 SC 1603- Sarangadeva Periya Matam Vs
Ramaswami Gounder.
21. 1991 CrlLJ 978, 980 (Guj.)- State of Gujarat Vs Bhaupendra.
B. Cases referred by the respondents:-
1. 1990(2) RajasthanLR 672: Jankidass & Anr. Vs. Mahant
Dhangir & Ors.
2. 1997 (4) SCC 102: Ranbir Das & anr. Vs. Kalyan Das &
Anr.
3. 1988 (2) WLN 351: Poonam Chand by Lrs and Ors Vs. Laxmi
Narain.
4. 1989 AIR SC 1530: Kali Prasad Agarwala and Ors Vs. M/s
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Ors.
5. 2002 AIR Rajasthan 330: Devi Shankar Vs. Ugam Raj.
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (4 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]
6. 2007 (11) SCC 736: Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of
M.P.
7. 2007(11) SCC 357: Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Vs. Hardayal
Singh Dhillon and Ors.
8. 2003 (7) SCC 301: Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mrs.
Vijaya C. Gurshaney & Anr.
9. 2008 (1) ALL WC 437- Mahant Basant Kumar Giri Vs. Jagrup
Giri and Anr.
10. 2015 AIR Rajasthan 179: Tara and 35 Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Anr.
11. 1979 (4) SCC 790: Avadh Kishore Das Vs. Ram Gopal
and Ors.
12. 1956 AIR (SC) 713 : Mohammad Shah Vs. Fasihuddin
Ansari & Ors.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment Reserved on : 26.03.2025 Judgment pronounced on : 09.04.2025
1. Heard the parties and perused the records as well as written submissions.
2. The plaintiff/respondent nos. 1 and 2 had brought civil original suit no. 77/1997 against the appellants and defendants / respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. The suit has been decreed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.5.2008 by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bikaner.
3. In the civil suit, the plaintiffs had prayed for declaration that the suit property mentioned in Schedule "Ka" is property of the Math and Ramdham Mandir and plaintiff no. 1 being Mahant of the Math was owner of the property as Sewadaar. The plaintiffs further sought for injunction against the respondents not to make obstruction in respect of the suit property claiming themselves to (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (5 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] be owner thereof; if the defendants claim their possession or possession of the defendant is found on the suit property, a decree for recovery of possession has been sought for. Schedule "Ka" of the plaint would reveal that the suit property has been identified by name and boundary.
4. Bereft of factual details in the pleadings of the parties, the real dispute lies in a very narrow compass. There is no dispute that the parties are followers of Ram Sanehi Sampradaya, a cult which worships their gurus and put their photographs/idols in a temple. It is also not disputed that the main seat (gaddi) of the Sampradaya is at Village Sinthal in the District of Bikaner. It is also not disputed that Late Chaukas Ram Ji was Dada guru of the Sampradaya. Chaukas Ram Ji selected and appointed late Ram Narayan Ji as Mahant of the seat who remained as such during 1998 to 2005.
According to plaintiffs, plaintiff no. 1 Ram Dayal Ji who was disciple of Ram Narayan Ji was selected as successor Mahant by Ram Narayan Ji. Since Ram Dayal Ji was of immature age, Late Bhagwat Das, the guru of respondent nos. 1 to 4 was appointed as care taker (Adhikari) to look after the affairs till Ram Dayal Ji get maturity. On Ramdayal Ji getting maturity, Bhagwat Das Ji performed the traditional rituals of Chadar Poshi etc. and made Ram Dayal Ji as Mahant.
According to the defendants, plaintiff Ram Dayal Ji was never Mahant of the Gaddi, rather, he was just a Manager and Bhagwat Das was real Mahant selected and appointed by Ram Narayan Ji.
According to the plaintiffs, only the existing Mahant who was also Guru, was competent to select his successor whereas (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (6 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] according to the defendants unless all the followers accept any nominee for Mahantship as their guru, there was no question of assigning him the seat of Mahant. Plaintiff no.1 was never recognized as Guru by other followers, rather, Bhagwat Das was appointed as Mahant with the approval of the followers.
According to plaintiff, there are 9 properties mentioned in the Schedule-"Ka" of the plaint situated at different places. Property No. 1 Ramdham at Sinthal was main seat, property no. 2 Bada Ramdwara at Bikaner was residence of the Mahant, property no. 3 Anand Ashram at Rani Bazar, Bikaner was a Hospital, Property No. 4 Ram Badi at Bikaner was of the trust which was illegally sold by Bhagwat Das who had no authority to sell the property of the Sampradaya. The plaintiff asserted that before Bhagwat Das, property of the Sampradaya was never sold by any Mahant. Property No. 5 known as Shri Kolyat Ji was a Dharmshala, property no. 6 a house and shop at Karanpur was purchased in 1929, property no. 7 Mateli Ki Dukan was sold in the year 1964 by the Mahant, who was not competent to sell it, property no. 8 at Bada Bazar, Bikaner was property of the Trust which was allegedly gifted by Ram Narayan Ji to Bhagwat Das and Bhagwat Das sold it to Nawal Ram in 1971, property no. 9 a house at Kesaripura was also sold years back.
According to the defendants, except the property at Sinthal, other properties were not of the Sampradaya. In fact other properties were individual properties of the followers. In a family settlement, those properties were partitioned and allotted to the respective followers. The property at Bada Ramdwara was bifurcated in two parts by the then Mahant and south western (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (7 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] portion was declared as public trust and has already been registered as such, the north eastern portion was declared as private trust for the Sadhus of Sinthal seat.
According to the plaintiff, the Mahants of the Sampradaya had no transferable right in respect of property of the Sampradaya whereas according to the defendants, the Mahant had transferable right as well as right to partition the property and create a Trust (public or private) and get it registered accordingly.
5. The learned trial Judge framed following issues for adjudication and on consideration of the evidences on the record decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff/respondents.
(i) Issue no. 1 - Whether the suit property is of Ramdwara and plaintiff no. 2 Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal is its owner and status of the Mahant is only of a custodian?
(ii) Issue No. 2 - Whether Mahant Ram Narayan Ji had declared plaintiff no. 1 as his successor Mahant and late Bhagwat Das was made only Adhikari (working Mahants)?
(iii) Issue No. 3 - Whether said Bhagwat Das as per desire of Ram Narayan Ji, performed the rituals of Mahantship and put the plaintiff on the Gaddi of the Sampradaya?
(iv) Issue No. 4 - Whether respondent nos. 8, 9 and 11 had right to sale the suit property mentioned at 'Schedule-Ka' of the plaint and what would be the effect on the sale made by them ?
(v) Issue No. 5 - Whether the plaintiff is owner of Schedule-"Ka"
property in the capacity of Mahant of the Sampradaya?
(vi) Issue No. 6 - Whether a relief to be declared as a Mahant can be granted when it has not been sought for ?
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (8 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]
(vii) Issue No. 7 Whether plaintiff no. 2, the temple without any representation by next friend is entitled to get a decree and suit is maintainable at the hands of the plaintiffs?
(viii)Issue No. 8 Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?
(ix) Issue No. 9 Whether the suit is under valued?
(x) Issue No. 10 - Whether there is dispute between parties in respect of the said subject matter pending before the Court in the circumstance whether the plaintiff is entitled to bring the present suit?
(xi) Issue No. 11 - plaintiff no. 2 is not a real person in the circumstance, he could have been made a party to the suit or a suit could have been filed in his behalf?
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the trial Judge wrongly placed the burden of proof on the appellants to controvert that the suit property is not the property of Ramdwara. In fact, the burden was on the plaintiff to establish that the suit property was property of Ramdwara. Learned counsel submits that the law is well settled that burden lies on the party who claims an issue to be decided in his favour. In other words, if no evidence is led by the parties claiming decree, the suit would fail. A. Learned counsel next contends that it is case of the appellants that the predecessor Mahant got some of the properties registered as public trust, whereas, some other properties were listed as private trust; to be used by the Sadhus of the Sampradaya. There was a probate proceeding for authentication of will executed by Mahant Ram Narayan Ji in favour of Bhagwat Das Ji. The plaintiff was also a party to the probate proceeding wherein probate was granted. The said order was not challenged, (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (9 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the properties which were subject matter of the probate proceeding, as property of the Ramdwara Sampradaya. Learned counsel next submits that the plaintiff/respondent has challenged certain sale deeds as null and void, though in some of the sale deeds, plaintiff no. 1 was a party.
B. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that the trial Judge has not assigned any reason while deciding issue no. 1 and has not referred to the evidences while deciding issue nos. 2 and 3.
C. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2023 (7) SCC 282 and Central Board of Trustees Vs. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (8) SCC 443. Though law does not require reasons in so many words, however, the aforesaid infirmity can be cured at Appellate stage as well. On perusal of the trial Court judgment it does not appear that the Court has not considered the evidence on the record for coming to a particular conclusion.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the plaintiff/respondent has proved and established that the suit property was property of Ramdwara by producing different pattas which are marked as Exhibit - 1 to 10. The pattas were granted in favour of predecessor Mahants for use and development of Ramdwara and was not personal property of the Mahant. Prior to Bhagwatdas, no Mahant had claimed any property, in their individual name, as their personal property after they became Mahant. As per tradition of the Sampradaya, once a Chela is selected as Mahant, one of the moral qualities required for (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (10 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] Mahantship was that he should have no personal lust for the property. In the circumstance, in the history of last more than 200 years, none of the Mahants prior to Bhagwat Das ever exercised his personal right on the property of Ramdwara, standing in his individual name.
According to learned counsel, as per the traditions of the Sampradaya, once a Shishya (disciple) is appointed as Mahant, even personal property standing in his name goes to the Sampradaya. This 200 years tradition was not controverted by the appellants nor the Mahant who exercised personal right of creation of Trust or of partition of the Trust property amongst the Shisyas (disciple) had such right nor was there any precedent or Rule to permit them to exercise right contrary to the interest of the public Trust.
Learned counsel submits that the trial Judge has examined all these matters and the law does not require that the reasons in support of the judgment must be in so many words. If the conclusion is based on the material on record, even one sentence reason would suffice.
Learned counsel for the respondents extraneously contends that execution of a Will or grant of probate would not create a title in favour of the legatee unless the legator had title over the property. Since the Mahant Mr. Ram Narayan Ji, who is said to have executed a Will in favour of Bhagwat Das had no title to the property, the title would not go to the legatee neither there was any tradition nor any rule permitting any Mahant to create third party right in respect of the property of Ramdwara. (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (11 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]
8. The First point for consideration in this appeal is whether Ramsnehi Sampradaya running since more than 200 years was a public trust as defined under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Sub Section (11) of Section 2 of The Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 defines public Trust as follows:-
"11. "public trust" means an express or constructive trust for either a public religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment or institution and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both."
There is pleading and evidence that the trust in question was for public religious purposes. Sub Section (13) defines religious endowment as follows:-
"13. "religious endowment" or "endowment" means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of a religious institution or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of the religious institution as well as the idols, if any, installed therein and any public charity associated with a festival or observance of a religious character, whether connected with a religious institutions or not, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the trustee or hereditary trustee or working trustee of such institution or to any service-holder or other employee thereof."
Sub Section (14) defines religious Institution as follows:- (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (12 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] "14. "religious institution" or "institution" means an institution for the promotion of any religion or persuasion and includes a temple, math and any religious establishment or any place of religious worship or religious instruction whether or not appurtenant to such institution."
Sub Section (16) defines temple as follows:-
"16. "temple" means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by a community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship."
Section 3 and 4 relate to validity of certain public trusts which reads as follows:-
"3. Public Trust not to be void on ground of uncertainty. - Notwithstanding any law, custom or usage, a public trust shall not be void only on the ground that the persons or objects for the benefit of whom or which it is created are unascertained or unascertainable.
4. Public trust not void on ground that it is void for non-charitable or non-religious purposes.- A public trust created for purposes, some of which are charitable or religious and some are not, shall not be deemed to be void with respect to the charitable or religious purpose only on the ground that it is void with respect to the non- chartiable or non-religious purpose."
9. Evidently, Ramsnehi Sampradaya was/is a religious Institution wherein anybody can get entry provided he is ready to follow the norms and disciplines of the Sampradaya. In the case (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (13 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] on hand, there is pleading and evidence that the Sampradaya erects temples wherein photographs of Gurus are placed and paid respect. Evidently, Ramsnehi Sampradaya was a public trust as defined under the law. Moreover, the averment in para 21 and 23 of the plaint refers the Sampradaya as a trust. Likewise in the written statement vide para 1 and para 3 there is reference that 20 years back certain suit properties were declared as public Trust whereas other properties were declared as private Trust by the then Mahant. In para 4, it is stated that south western portion of the suit property situated at Sunaro Ka Mohalla was declared as public Trust by the then Mahant and north eastern portion was declared as private trust for use of the family and Sadhus of Sinthal Gaddi. It is also admission of the appellants that the then Trustees had brought a suit against plaintiff no. 1 of this case for his ejectment. The party witnesses PW.1 and DW.1 and the documents marked as Exhibit 9A and 10A further depicts that the suit property was Trust property. Order dated 16.3.1988 passed in File No. 27 of 1984 by Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department would to go show that in the year 1983, the Devasthan Department conducted a survey of the public trust which were still not registered and it was found that Kolayat Ramsnehi Aashram was not registered as trust property though it was a public religious trust, hence, direction was issued to include it as a Trust property. Some strayed and untrustworthy statement of some witnesses would not change the status of Ramsnehi Sampradaya as public trust, hence finding of the trial Judge stands affirmed to the aforesaid effect.
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (14 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]
10. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the suit property mentioned in Schedule-"Ka" of the plaint is property of Ramsnehi Sampradaya. The parties are not in dispute that Ramdham situated as Sinthal is the main seat of the Sampradaya acquired since time immemorial, hence, it was a Trust property. Property No. 2 Bada Ramdwara, Bikaner was separated by a predecessor Mahant as public Trust and Private Trust. The burden is on the appellants to prove that the Mahant had such power to convert the long standing Sampradaya into public Trust and private trust especially when there was no precedent in this regard nor any Rule. The appellants failed to establish that the private trust was validly created, rather, the creation was just to get the cake of a public Trust cut and shared to the detriment of the Trust. As discussed above, the pattas goes to show that this property was also property of the Sampradaya though pattas were issued in the name of individual Mahant. Property No. 3 Anand Ashram was also property of the Ramsnehi Sampradaya and defendants failed to discharge their burden that it was private property of the Mahant acquired from his self and separate earning and not earning of the Trust. Moreover, undisputedly it was being used as a charity hospital of the Sampradaya. It is not disputed that property no. 4 Rambadi, Bikaner was also of the Sampradaya and sold long back in the year 1955 and 1969. Since the purchasers are not party to the suit without hearing them sale deed in their favour cannot be declared as null and void. As noticed above, Shri Kolayat property was already declared as property of the trust by the authorities of Devasthan Department by a judicial order. (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (15 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]
11. In the matter of property no. 6, house and shop at Karanpur, it is stated that Ram Narayan Ji had executed a Will in favour of Bhagwatdas and probate was granted in favour of Bhagwatdas. In the later part of the judgment, it would be discussed whether prayer for declaration of property at item no. 6 as trust property can be granted without specifically seeking for such relief. Property No. 7 known as Mateli Ki Dukan was sold 50 years back. Property No. 8 Bada Bazar, Bikaner and property no. 9 house at Kesaripura were sold long back which is not disputed by the parties. Since, the purchasers of these properties are not party to the suit, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff in respect of these properties.
12. In the circumstance, in respect of property at serial no. 4 Ram Badi, Bikaner, serial no. 7 Mateli Ki Dukan, serial no. 8 Bada Bazar, Bikaner, Serial No. 9 House at Kesaripura, at Schedule "Ka" no decree can be passed in absence of the purchaser as party and having opportunity of being heard.
13. It is consistent pleading and evidence of the plaintiff/respondent that Mahant had no right to sale or otherwise encumber the property Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal belonging to plaintiff no. 2. Plaintiff asserted that prior to Mahant Ram Narayan Ji, no other Mahant had exercised such transferable right in 250 years of the history of the Sampradaya.
Whereas the defendants/appellants asserted that the Mahant had right to transfer the property. He had right to create trust - private or public. Moreover, the property standing in the individual name of Mahant, acquired prior to getting Mahantship, was his exclusive property, therefore, he could have dealt with their (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (16 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] property as has been done at certain circumstances. Further contention is that even plaintiff no. 1 had sold some of the property, hence, he is estopped from denying such right existing with the Mahant.
14. Now this Court will look into the evidence of the appellants and its witnesses. DW.1 Chhama Ram, who is party defendant has admitted in the cross examination at page 19 that Bhagwat Das had not purchased and blended any property to Ramdwara, rather, properties were purchased long back. At page 20, the witness admitted that the property which Bhagwat Das had bequeathed to this witness, patta whereof was standing in the name of predecessor Mahant Chaukas Ram Ji Maharaj. Evidently, the said property was not of the testator, hence, it was not self-acquired property capable of being bequeathed to anyone. At page 23, the witness admitted that Bhagwat Das Ji was Shisya (disciple) of Chaukas Ram Ji. At Page 30, the witness admitted that there was no separate Ramdwara at Sunaro nor any separate Mahant was there, rather, Mahant of Sinthal was Mahant of Sunaro as well. The admission of the appellants probablizes acceptance of the case of the plaintiff/respondent that suit properties were property of Ramdwara. The learned trial Judge correctly held that the burden was on the defendants/appellants to bring contrary evidence on the record that the properties which were sold or bequeathed or partitioned by the Shisyas (disciple) were not the property of the trust. Simple for the reason that plaintiff no. 1 had also joined in some sale transaction would not validate the unauthorized deal made by the followers in respect of property of the Trust. The evidence on record clearly suggest that Schedule-"Ka" property (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (17 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] was property of the trust. However, since some of the purchasers of the property are not party to the suit, no decree can be passed in respect of those properties without hearing the purchasers as noticed above.
15. In Jankidass & Anr. Vs. Mahant Dhangir & Ors. reported in 1990(2) Rajasthan LR 672, this Court held that the property which belonged to the Math must have been held by the person who was managing the Math as trustee and could have alienated the property only for the benefit of the trust. It has been held that if a sadhu acquires property and doesn't devote it to religious purposes he remains absolute arbiter of the disposal of the property but if the property has once passed to a chela by virtue of his being a chela it is only reasonable to hold that the chela must treat the property as religious.
In the case on hand, the property standing in the name of Chaukas Ram Ji was succeeded by his chela Ram Narayan Ji and Ram Narayan Ji allegedly bequeathed it to a follower. Likewise, some of the properties sold were not individual property of the vendor disciple, rather, was property in the name of his guru, as such, it was a Trust property.
16. In Tara & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2015 AIR Rajasthan 179, this Court held that the land acquired by Mahant will vest in Math properties and thereafter, the chela/disciple had no authority to alienate the property of Math and all the transfers would be null and void.
The present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment as the property transferred either by sale or bequeath was not by the person in whose name patta was standing, rather, (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (18 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] chela/disciple had transferred without authority as such the bequeath and sale transaction was void ab initio.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that since the plaintiff had not asked for declaration that he was Mahant of the Trust. No such relief could have been granted by the trial Judge. Learned counsel next contends that unless the purchasers of the property are made party, the relief for declaration of entire Schedule-"Ka" properties of the trust should not have been allowed.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that law is well settled that the Court can grant any relief ancillary to the main relief, provided the same is supported by pleadings and evidence. As has been noticed above, there is pleading and evidence from both sides and issues were framed on whether plaintiff no. 1 is duly appointed Mahant.
19. In the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Anr. Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 475, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as follows:-
"Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner."
20. In the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal Ors. in Civil Appeals No. 5798-5799 of 2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated in paras 9 and 10, the principle governing the field as follows:-
"9. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (19 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the Court for its consideration.
This Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must take.
10. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (20 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief."
Thus, it is settled law that relief found on pleadings may be granted, even if, no prayer is made, provided the defendants had opportunity to oppose and resist such relief by pleading and proving to the contrary.
21. In the case on hand, plaintiff pleaded that he was duly appointed Mahant and the respondents denied the fact. The learned trial Judge framed issues in this regard and on consideration of the evidence, issues were decided, therefore even if relief for declaration as Mahant was not specifically prayed for, the court could have granted such relief after consideration of evidence on record. Likewise, the plaintiff asserted that the transfer made by the Mahants were without authority and competence, therefore, transfers be declared as null and void. The defendant/appellants asserted that such right was therewith the Mahants. On considering the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the trial Judge and relief was granted, which cannot be faulted on this ground.
22. The plaintiff's case is consistently supported by evidence that the Mahants of the Sampradaya neither had any authority to sale the property of the Sampradaya nor prior to Ram Narayan Ji any Mahant had ever exercised such right nor the "Anubhav Vani", the book governing rules and regulations of the Sampradaya, permits such right to the Mahant. It was burden of the defendants to disprove the aforesaid fact by cogent evidence. Though, the (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (21 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] defendants pleaded that the Mahants could have exercised such right in respect of their individual property but the evidence is contrary on the record that the Mahant who executed the Will was not having patta in his name, rather, patta of the property was in the name of his Guru i.e. previous Mahant. Accepting the preponderance of probability of the plaintiff's case it is held that Ramsnehi Sampradaya was/is a public religious trust and its Mahant had has no authority to transfer in any manner the property of the trust, rather, he had only regulatory authority and authority of minor expenses to facilitate the interest of the trust and not otherwise.
23. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney & Anr. reported in 2003 (7) SCC 301, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that issuance of probate or letter of administration does not confer title to the property, it merely enables administration of the estate of the deceased. It shall remain open to the person to dispute title even though probate or letters of administration have been granted (Paras 8, 10).
24. The next point for consideration is whether plaintiff no.1 was duly appointed Mahant of the Ramsnehi Sampradaya. The plaintiff asserted that the tradition of the Sampradaya was that the existing Mahant used to select his successor Mahant. Following the same tradition Ram Narayan Ji selected plaintiff no. 1 as Mahant, however, since plaintiff no. 1 was of immature age Bhagwat Das was appointed as working Mahant with direction that on getting age of maturity the plaintiff would be coronated as Mahant. Plaintiff further asserted that Chadar Poshi etc. is the formal (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (22 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] function for getting the new Mahants seated on the Gaddi and this was performed by Bhagwat Das Ji Maharaj while putting plaintiff no. 1 on the Gaddi of the Sampradaya. Ex. 18 to 28, the photographs of the function of coronation was produced on the record to support that plaintiff no. 1 was made Mahant of the Sampradaya. The plaintiff witnesses also supported the aforesaid fact. The defendants/appellants and their witnesses were shown the photographs and they admitted that Bhagwat Das was putting wrapper on plaintiff no. 1 and the witnesses were also present there but the defendants said that the same was a showy function. Once the defendants and its witnesses accepted that the rituals for making plaintiff no. 1 Mahant was performed, the burden that it was just a showy ritual or ritual performed under fear shifted on the defendant/appellants which they have failed to discharge. DW.1 admits that in fact he was put on the seat of Mahant and photographs of the function was also taken but he did not produce any of the photographs, therefore, the available evidence goes to suggest that case put forward by the plaintiff/appellant was more probable and acceptable, therefore, this Court is of the view that plaintiff no. 1 was/is Mahant of the Sampradaya.
In view of the aforesaid material in favour of the plaintiff's case, some conflicting evidence regarding date of coronation of plaintiff no. 1 losses significance especially when dates under different calendars were referred to by the witnesses.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the plaintiff's case is that the suit property is of plaintiff no. 2 (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (23 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal. Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal is not represented by anyone, hence, no decree can be passed in favour of plaintiff no. 2 regarding the suit property.
26. Though, it is a fact that Ramdham Mandir is not separately represented by a natural person, rather, is represented indirectly by plaintiff no. 1. Section 2(9) of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 defines the term "person having interest" as followed:
"2(9) "person having interest" or any expression signifying a person having interest in a public trust includes-
(a) in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is entitled to partaking or is in the habit of partaking in the distribution of gifts thereof;
(b) in the case of a math, a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuassion to which the math belongs;
(c) in the case of a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (Rajasthan Act 28 of 1958) or under any other analogous law in force in any part of the State, any member of such society; and
(d) in the case of any other public trust, any beneficiary."
Evidently, plaintiff no. 1 had interest in respect of the trust property and main relief he has sought for is declaration that the suit property is of Ramsnehi Sampradaya and Mahant of the Sampradaya had no transferable right in respect of the property of the Sampradaya, therefore, interest of plaintiff no. 2 is properly (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (24 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] represented by plaintiff no. 1. The impugned judgment cannot be faulted on this ground.
27. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that Devasthan Department under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 was a necessary party as the suit property relates to a Trust and in absence of Devasthan Department the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary party. The record reveals that, after the parties failed to reach to an amicable settlement, by order dated 26.11.2015, the Court issued notice to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner alongwith a copy of the memo of appeal and on appearance of the Devasthan Department by order dated 1.2.2016 formed a committee consisting of Assistant Collector (ADM-1), Bikaner and Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department under supervision of District Collector with certain directions to take over management and possession of the suit property, maintain records of income and place the same quarterly before this Court. The Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner was directed to remain personally present before the Court on all dates of hearing before this Court. Even on the date of hearing, the counsel for Devasthan Department was present before the Court and he simply submitted that after adjudication of dispute between the parties, the Devasthan Department would proceed according to law and direction of the Court. Moreover, no relief has been sought for against Devasthan Department. In the circumstance, Devasthan Department was a formal party.
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:15405] (25 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] Moreover, the Devasthan Department has already been heard, therefore, the trial Court judgment cannot be faulted on this ground also.
28. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that the relief for declaration of sale deeds and probate as void is barred by limitation.
29. Since the transferee of the suit property had no transferable right, the transactions entered into by them was void ab-initio. For such declaration, the suit could have been filed on knowledge of the fact.
30. Moreover, Section 10 of the Limitation Act clearly stipulates that no limitation would apply when the property relates to a Trust etc., the provision is being reproduced below:-
"Section 10. Suits against trustees and their representatives.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act, no suit against a person in whom property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose, or against his legal representatives or assigns (not being assigns for valuable consideration), for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property, or the proceeds thereof, or for an account of such property or proceeds, shall be barred by any length of time.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section any property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be property vested in trust for a specific purpose and the manager of the property shall be deemed to be the trustee thereof."(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (26 of 27) [CFA-336/2008] The aforesaid provision was considered in Mohammad Shah Vs. Fasihuddin Ansari & Ors. reported in 1956 AIR (SC) 713, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no limitation for a suit in respect of property in possession of Mutawalli/trustee of the Wakf.
In view of the aforesaid provisions, this Court does not find any merit in the aforesaid submission that prayer of the plaintiff was barred by limitation.
31. To conclude, it is well established that Ramsnehi Sampradaya is a public religious trust. Its Mahant had/has no transferable right in respect of the property of the Trust. Mahant could have exercised supervision and development as well as religious function of the Sampradaya and the income from the property of the Sampradaya and other donations could have been utilized for the said purpose as well as for development of the Sampradaya. Plaintiff No. 1 has proved that he was duly appointed Mahant.
32. The Committee constituted by interim order dated 1.2.2016 which is submitting quarterly report would continue to submit report till the present quarter ending on 31.6.2025 to this Court and shall deposit the accumulated fund with the bank account of the Trust, which could be operated by the signature of two persons, one of them would be plaintiff no. 1 or his nominee. The second person alongwith plaintiff no. 1 would be chosen from amongst the followers by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department. Devasthan Department would be at liberty to regulate the Trust under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trusts Act.
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (27 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]
33. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed as devoid of any merit, however, without any costs.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J sumer/-
(Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)