- (1.) This first appeal from order is directed against an order dated 27-31996, followed by a formal order dated 17-41996 recorded by the IInd Addl. Distt. Judge. Bijnaur, in Misc. Cafe No. 113 of 1990 under Section 92, CPC rejecting the prayer of the appellants for leave to institute a suit of the nature spoken of under Section 92, CPC. The application in question was filed by the present appellants under Section 92, CPC read with Order 1, Rule 8 and Section 151 CPC. It was stated that the property indicated in the plaint stood vested in the Almighty and the temple and other properties of the deity formed a public trust and a suit for relief covered by Section 92. CPC could be filed only after obtaining leave of the court.
(2.) In the application before the court below it was stated that Sahu Chhajmal Das was a renowned Zamindar of religious bend of mind and for the religious Hindus in general he had set up a temple of Satayanarayan Ji Maharaj more than 100 years ago. A deity was installed in the temple. The people used to assemble there for worship. The Zamindar also sank a well and also set up a dharamshalla for the benefit of the followers of Hindu religion. All the properties were dedicated to the deity in general for observance of Hindu festivities in the temple. During his life time Sahu Chhajmaldas used to run the administration of the temple and the dharamshala and all the internal and external properties with the help of the general Hindu Public of the locality. Pilgrims used to come and stay in the dharamshala and warship in the temple and used to offer bhajans and sang kirtans connected with Hindu religion. After the death of Sahu Chhajmal Das, the properties came under the management of his son Har Prasad, who also continued the line of management of his father. He established the image of Hanumanji, extended the dharamshala for proper accommodation of pilgrims and subsequently the property and the temple became famous with the name of. Hari Prasad. The applicants asserted that the temple, Dharamshala and other properties vested completely in the Almighty for the general benefit of the followers of the Hindu religion. Har Prasad had three sons, namely, Bhagwati, Jagdish and Ram Raksha Pal. Bhagwati has also died. Respondent Rajendra Prasad was his son. Ram Raksha Pal has also died. Respondent Sunil Kumar is his son. Respondent Shakuntala Devi is the widow of Ram Raksha Pal. Jagdish Prasad left behind no heir. After the death of Har Prasad his eldest son Bhagwati managed the property in question through the help of Hindu Public. For proper maintenance of the property, he entrusted management of the western portion of the same to his younger brother, Ram Rakshpal. Bhagwati Prasad and Ram Raksha Pal and son and wife of Ram Raksha Pal considered the property as that of the deity and they had no authority to make any change in the property. The temple and the dharamshala became so famous that it found mention in the railway time table. municipal records. the district gazetter of Binjour etc. as the mandir and dharamshala of Satayanarain Ji Maharaj. It was asserted that the property constitutes a trust of public nature and allegations were made regarding actions by the respondents against the interest of the trust.
(3.) The impugned order indicates that the respondent contested the application and raised an objection. It was alleged by the respondents before the court below that the plaintiff's had filed the application with a view to make illegal benefit and illegal possession on the land of jain Samaj. The trust in question was described as a private trust and that related only to the temple. The western land had no concern with the temple which was a school where other social activities were also conducted. The plaintiffs had no oral or documentary evidence to support their case.The will in question was a family affair and in the will also there was a reference of a single storied building on the eastern side. Under the will, the property was bequeathed to Har Prasad. The three brothers, Bhagwati, Ram Raksha Pal and Jagdish had partitioned the property between themselves and this would suggest that the property never vested in the Almighty or in the deity lying in the temple. The trial court considered the averments of the parties and the documents produced on their behalf. It was clearly found by the trial court that the plaintiff had not given any affidavit or oral evidence in support of their averments. On behalf of the respondents, one Jayant Kumar had sworn an affidavit. Certain affidavits were filed by the plaintiffs as against this affidavit of respondent Jayant Kumar. It was asserted before the court below by the plaintiffs that the suit property as detailed in the plaint was a single unit and it was a public trust. The respondents denied that the western and eastern parts were parts of the same property. The trial court was of the view that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit property was not partitioned between the three brothers, Bhagwati. Ram Raksha Pal and Jagdish. He came to the conclusion that the western portion did not belong to the public trust and, accordingly, the application was dismissed.;