Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: temple trusts in Babu Lal And 2 Others vs Ravi Narayan And 10 Others on 26 August, 2021Matching Fragments
1. The present revision has been preferred by the defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'applicant') against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, (FTC), Mahoba granting leave to suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC')
2. The facts, in short, are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') instituted a suit under Section 92 of CPC praying for a decree to remove the applicants from the trustee in Shree Ram Laxman Janakiji Vakai Mandir, Dubiyana, District Mohoba and further, the applicant no.1 be directed to submit the account of trust and to return the money of trust which is in the hands of applicant no.1. Further relief prayed was that a trustee be appointed in the trust to manage the property and temple as per the trust deed.
3. The plaint case is that one Shiv Charan Lal was the owner of a one-story house, the shops situated in Khanga Bazar Grantganj, District Mahoba, two-third part of Khata Khewat Number-2, Mauja Tindauli Mohal Dariyaw Patti Murtaja Hussain Khan, Pargana Mohaba, and one Bagh adjacent to Ramleela. He got constructed a Devalya known as Ram Laxman Janakiji. He executed a trust deed dated 06.10.1909 registered on 07.10.1909 to manage the temple. The aforesaid properties owned by Shiv Charan Lal were dedicated to Shree Ram Laxman Janakiji by the trust deed and proceeds of said property are to be used for maintenance, Pooja, and Bhog of the temple. Trust is a public charitable trust. The temple is in a dilapidated condition, and the applicant no.1 who manages the trust is not maintaining the temple from the income of the properties of the trust. Further, the allegation in the plaint is that the trust owns a big market consisting of small shops over the house owned by the Trust which has been let out on rent. The income of the trust is being used by applicant no.1 for his personal use. It is further stated that a part of shops owned by the trust has been let out to Union Bank of India at the rate of Rs.17,738/- per month and rent paid by the bank is also used by applicant no.1 for his personal use. The respondents claim that they belong to the family of the applicants and used to visit the temple for Pooja and as such, they have an interest in the temple of trust. The relevant paragraphs of the plaint are extracted herein-below:-
6. The leave application was contested by the applicants contending inter alia that the respondents are not the family members of the applicants. It is also submitted that trust is a private trust and, therefore, the provisions of Section 92 of CPC are not applicable. It is also pleaded that the respondents have not submitted any claim according to which trust should be managed. Besides the above, applicants took several other grounds.
7. The trial court after noticing the contention of applicants as well as respondents and the conditions stipulated in the trust deed in terms of which the trust is to be managed, recorded a prima facie opinion that trust is a public trust. The trial court while recording the said finding has considered seven stipulations in the trust deed in terms of which trust is to be run. The first condition is that the Government tax is to pay from the income of the trust, and the income of the trust is to be used for expenses incurred in Bhog and Pooja, etc. of the temple. No trustee has the right to transfer the property of trust or can do any business for his benefit from the property of the trust. The second condition relates to the appointment of Pujari for the Temple. According to the third condition, the income accrued from the property of trust shall be used for Bhog and Pooja, and trustees and their heirs shall not object to the expenses which are to be incurred for bhog or pooja and they shall maintain the accounts of expenses. The fourth condition provides that if the trustee is ineligible or refuses to act as trustee, the Peshwakar Malik or head of the family of the Founder of Trust will act as trustee. The fifth condition provided that if any trustee wishes to start any new venture not mentioned in the trust deed, the accounts shall be maintained and audited by five reputable persons of the Panchayat. As per the sixth condition, if there arises any difficulty in paying the state revenue, the state revenue can be paid from other property of the trust. According to the Seventh Condition, the Founder reserves the right to change manager and management of the trust, and the manager shall strictly follow the conditions of the Trust in managing it; if any member does not wish to continue, he may be replaced by a generous and competent person by the Panchas who shall also abide by the conditions of the Trust.
34. In the case of Sri Satnarayan Ji Maharaj Virajman Mandir Sat Narayan Dharamshala and others Versus Rajendra Prasad Aggarwal and others AIR 1997 ALL 413, the trial court refused to grant leave to suit on the ground that trust deed reveals that temple, Dharamshala, and property in question belong to the defendants and the trust properties were partitioned between them. Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the judgment are reproduced herein-below:
"5. The appellant contended that the nature of the trust, whether it was for public purposes or not, would be determined from the fact as to who would be the beneficiaries of the trust. It was contended that materials were there before the court below to infer that the Hindu public in general were allowed to stay in the dharamshala and to offer puja in the temple and to take part in bhajan and kirtans in the temple and, as such, the public in general were beneficiaries of the trust. The respondents contended that to allow the public in general to offer puja or to stay in a dharamshala may not convert the same into a trust for public purposes when the ownership always remained with Sahu Chhajmal Das and, thereafter, with his sons and these sons had partitioned the property amongst themselves. Had it been the trust, it was argued, no question could have arisen for partition of the property between certain private individuals. In this connection, reference was made to the papers filed with the counter affidavit which were not denied. It was only stated regarding these papers that the properties were not partitioned, only the management thereof was partitioned.