- (1.) The defendants have come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court reversing on appeal those of the trial Court and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the disputed land.
(2.) The facts :- Respondents Nos.1 and 2/ plaintiffs filed a suit challenging the alienation of the trust property made by respondents Nos.3 and 4/defendants Nos.1 and 2 (for short the alienors) in favour of defendants Nos.4 and 8/appellants (for short the alienees), inter alia, on the ground that the property was the trust property. A charitable religious trust was created by the Kaisth community of Rohtak for the management, administration and welfare of the temple which is famous by the name of Mandir Chitar Guptji Maharaj. The persons of the Kaisth community and other people worshipped at the temple and made offerings. The plaintiffs are the devotees of the temple and have interest in the temple and the trust property. The predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs gifted the property to the temple. Mutation No.405 was sanctioned in favour of the Mandir Chitar Guptji Maharaj on 30-12-1889. The alienors claiming themselves to be the Secretary and the President of trust created for the management of the temple sold the property vide sale deed dated 30-6-1973 in favour of the defendant-alienees. The sale was not in the interest of the temple and was thus, illegal and void. The alienees controverted the pleas of the plaintiffs and alleged that the trust vide resolution dated 28-6-1973 authorised the alienors for transferring the property in dispute in favour of the alienees. The trust was created for the management and administration of the Mandir Chitar Guptji Maharaj.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the sale deed executed on 30-6-73 and registered on 2-7-73 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs' trust? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to bring the suit? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 6. Whether the power of attorney in favour of Man Mohan is false and forged, if so its effect? OPD. 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 8. Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit? OPD. 9. Whether the defendants are bona fide purchaser with all rights and are protected u/S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act? OPD. 10. Relief." Issues Nos.1 and 9 were disposed of together and it war held that the trust authorised the alienors vide resolution Exhibit DW 2/A to transfer the property to the alienees who were in actual physical possession of the same being tenants. The sale was found to be valid. It was also found that the alienees are entitled to the protection of S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act; in view of the findings under issues Nos.1 and 9, issue No.2 was held redundant; issues Nos.3 and 4 were decided against the plaintiffs and it was held that they had no locus standi to file the suit; issue No.5 was answered in favour of the plaintiffs; issues Nos.6 to 8 were not pressed by the defendants and were decided against them. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the first appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were the worshippers of the temple and had interest in the property. It was also found that they were the heirs of the original donors and were recorded as owners in the jamabandi Exhibit P-3 for the year 1977-78. The donors who had gifted the land in favour of the temple had specifically restrained the donee from alienating the gifted property in any manner. Only the income from the property was to be used for the maintenance and upkeep of the temple. It was also found that the suit in the present form was maintainable; the plaintiffs were seeking possession of the property for and on behalf of the temple and were not claiming any title in the property. It was also found that the alienees were not entitled to protection of S.41 of the Transfer of Property Act.;