- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This revision is against the order dated 17- 4-1989 passed I by Shri R. K. Shukla, VIth Additional District Judge, Azamgarh by virtue of which he refused to entertain the suit under Section 14 of the Religious Endowment Act, ] 1863 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) THIS Revision has arisen from the following brief facts : there is one private endowment called Thakurdwara owned by family of Tahkur Madan Mohan Lalji spal Lal alias Thakurji Madan Mohanji situate in Mohalla Gurutola, presently Icnown as Mohalla Khattri Tola, Pargana Nizamabad, Tehsil Sadar, Azamgarh. The trust was created on 19-2-1977 and at present Shri Prakash Chandra is the Mutwalli, who manages the trust. The manager (Mutwalli) was to be appointed from the family in rotation and the best possible person was to head the temple. It was alleged in the suit that Prakash Chandra sold the property for Rs. 16,000 and he may be removed from the Managership and in place of him the present appellants No. 2 to 5 namely, Bhagwan Das, Raghunath Prasad, Baijnath Prasad and Radhey Shyam may be ap pointed by the Court. The case of Prakash Chandra is that it was sold to maintain the trust property and not for personal gain. The learned trial court rejected the claim of the plaintiffs-appellants as the permission under Section 18 of the Act cannot be granted because the trust is a private one. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial court the present revision has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order of the lower court refusing to grant permission under Section 18 of the Act is erroneous on facts and law as the trust is of public nature. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Act only applies to endowment of public nature and not private endowment.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent further submits that the finding of the lower court is also not erroneous and cannot be interferred and has relied upon The Managing Director, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager Pur chase and Stores, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad AIR 1973 SC 76. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that High Court should not interfere even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not, unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Since the lower court did not find the trust to be of public nature under the Act so it refused to allow the permission to file a suit. The finding is based on facts and it cannot be interferred as the lower court has jurisdiction to decide on jurisdictional and foundational facts.;