Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Secretary, Ramdev Trust Committee vs Mangu Das And Ors. on 13 May, 2008
Author: Dinesh Maheshwari
Bench: Dinesh Maheshwari
JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2007 as passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bar in Civil Suit No. 39/2005 rejecting an application moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. The suit in question has been filed by the plaintiffs-nonpetitioners seeking declaration and perpetual injunction in relation to their claim as hereditary pujaries of Shri Ramdev Temple, Birantiya Khurd, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali. The petitioner has filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and taking objection about maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court; and has also asserted that this Court has already issued orders in the writ petition relating to the subject-matter of the present suit.
3. From the material placed on record and so also the material as placed for perusal during the course of arguments, it appears that the suit has been put to trial after framing of issues on 10.05.2006 and with further addition of an issue on 13.04.2007. Issues framed in the case read as under:
1& vk;k oknhx.k Jhjkensoth efUnj fcjkfV;ka [kqnZ ds vuqokaf'kd iqtkjh gS rFkk bl vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk izkIr djus dss vf/kdkjh gS \
--------oknhx.k 2& vk;k oknhx.k LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\
--------oknhx.k 3& vk;k U;k;ky; dks okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugh gS \
--------izfroknhx.k 4& vk;k okn dh fo"k; oLrq ds laca/k esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk iwoZ esa vkns'k ifjr fd;s tk pqds gS \
---------izfroknhx.k 5& vuqrks"k \ 6& vk;k izfroknh VªLV dks oknhx.k dks gVkus ,oa vU; fdlh dks jkenso eafnj xzke fcjkfV;k [kqnZ esa iwtkjh j[kus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gS \
-----------izfroknh
4. It further appears that after amendment of issues, when the matter was pending for their evidence, the plaintiffs moved applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC and so also under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the matter was posted on 07.09.2007 for reply and arguments on such applications. However, on 07.09.2007, the petitioner filed an application (placed on record as Annex. 3) purported to be one under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC stating that in relation to the pujariship of Ramdev Trust, this Court had already passed an order on 18.01.1994 and in the said litigation; father of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and so also the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan were parties; and the order as passed by the High Court would apply in relation to the pujaries and in respect of the right of Seva-Archna and the suit having been filed in concealment of the order so passed by the High Court remains barred by law and deserves to be dismissed.
5. The plaintiffs submitted a reply to the said application on 05.10.2007; and the application filed by the petitioner was placed for arguments on 23.11.2007 but on this date, the application so moved on 07.09.2007 was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner. Another application was, however, moved by the petitioner on this date, again under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Such application dated 23.11.2007 has not been referred in this petition for revision and the submissions in the present petition remain as if being in reference to the application dated 07.09.2007 only. Be that as it may, a copy of the application dated 23.11.2007 has been placed for perusal by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-non-petitioners wherefrom it appears that the petitioner suggested before the Trial Court that Ramdev Trust Committee, Birantiya Khurd being a public trust registered with Devasthan Department, no suit in its relation was maintainable before the civil Court. A decision of this Court in the case of Sharad Kumar v. Raghuveer Singh and Anr. (S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 191/2003 decided on 16.11.2005) was referred, a certified copy whereof has been placed for perusal before this Court.
6. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application so moved by the petitioner on 23.11.2007 by its impugned order dated 27.11.2007 with the observations that the plaintiffs were claiming hereditary rights as pujaries and, being not related to the trusteeship or management of the trust, the suit was not barred under Section 73 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 ('the Act of 1959'). Hence this petition for revision.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned so as to call for interference.
8. Reference to the decision of this Court in Sharad Kumar's case (supra) for the purpose of the present suit as sought to be made by the defendant-petitioner appears to be entirely misconceived; and rather, the statement of law therein operates against the petitioner. After noticing the scheme of the Act of 1959 and the frame of the related civil suit where the plaintiffs-appellants claimed declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of three temples and claimed hereditary rights to participate in the management of the temple as trustees and also claimed the right to worship, this Court looked at the pith and substance of the suit and observed that the same was in challenge to the entry made in the register of the public trust which cannot be adjudicated upon by civil suit save in the manner and within the period prescribed under Section 22 of the Act of 1959. In relation to the argument by the plaintiff-appellant that the suit was maintainable in the civil Court because a declaration of his right to worship has also been sought, this Court observed that such a relief was, of course, not within the ambit of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1959 but then, reading the plaint as a whole, this Court found that additional prayer for declaration of right to worship would not take the matter out of the pale of Section 73 of the Act of 1959 as the suit was filed basically seeking a declaration of right to participate in the management of the temples as a trustee; and such a matter was covered by the Act of 1959. Hence, looking to its frame and its substance, the said suit was found barred by law, i.e., Section 73 of the Act of 1959. This Court observed, found and held as under:
I have no manner of doubt that the suit has been instituted, in effect and substance, challenging the entry in the Register of the Public Trusts which cannot be adjudicated upon by civil suit save in the manner and within the period prescribed under Section 22 of the Act. It is relevant to mention here that Section 44 of the Act excludes the applicability of Sections 92 and 93 of the C.P.C. and, therefore, the suit could not be entertained as representative suit under Section 92 of the Code. As regards the submission of the counsel that the appellant had also sought a declaration of his right to worship, it is true that such a relief does not fall within the ambit of the aforementioned provisions but it is well settled that nature of the suit has to be determined on reading of the plaint as a whole and not on the basis of reliefs sought. So read, the fact that the appellant also prayed for declaration of right to worship does not take the matter out of the pale of Section 73 read with the corresponding provisions of the Act. The suit was filed basically seeking a declaration of right to participate in the management of the temple as a trustee- a matter covered by the Act.
In the above premises, I find no error in the decisions of the Courts below rejecting the plaint under Order-7, Rule-11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code as barred by Section 73 of the Public Trusts Act.
9. Frame of the present suit makes it clear that the only claim of the plaintiffs-non-petitioners has been of their hereditary right of worship and the cognizance of the claim as made in the present suit by the civil Court cannot be said to be expressly or impliedly barred by any law. Profitable it shall be to notice the emphasised portion (supra) in the decision in Sharad Kumar's case wherein this Court has indicated that a relief in relation to declaration of right to worship does not fall within the ambit of the related provisions of the Act of 1959 so as to consider bar to the suit and so as to render the plaint liable for rejection. For the very observations as made by this Court in Sharad Kumar's case (supra), the application moved by the petitioner was fundamentally misconceived and was required to be rejected. Learned Trial Court has rightly done so.
10. As a result of the aforesaid, this revision petition stands dismissed and the interim order dated 28.02.2008 stands vacated. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this revision petition.