Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the application under Section 92 was filed by Rajesh Kumar, petitioner no. 2 in Writ Petition No. 16929 of 2011 along with Ramesh Chand, petitioner no. 3 in Writ Petition No. 13412 of 2011. The tenancy devolved upon them from their respective fathers Sone Lal & Basant Lal. The case was litigated between the same parties with regard to the same property raising the same question. The judgment and order dated 29.10.2002 had attained finality and was not challenged before any court of law. It having attained finality was binding upon the parties. It was held therein that the property in question is not a trust property. No public trust was created by Will. It was also adjudicated by the learned Civil Court that Subedar s/o. Lalman had inherited the property from his father and on adoption of Raja Ram as his son under the Hindu Succession Act, the rights of Subedar devolved upon Raja Ram. On the death of Raja Ram his widow Ram Devi inherited the property as absolute owner and then bequeathed the same to her nephews by registered Will dated 13.11.1987. In the Will dated 13.11.1987 only a pious obligation to maintain the temple and dharamshala was cast upon Subhash Dixit and Jitendra Dixit. The temple being a private property arrangement for Arti, Bhog Puja, Archana & Utsav of Srimahadevji, Maharanai Parvatiji and Hanumanji Maharaj continued. The temple and dharamshala had not been sold and the same were duly maintained by Subhash Dixit and Jitendra Dixit.