- (1.) The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal:- Whether the Courts below were justified in finding that the plaintiffs had any interest in the charitable and religious purposes of the Dharamshala of village Dangora to maintain the action under Section 92 CPC
(2.) The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs claiming themselves to be residents of the village Dangora on a contention that the property which is entered in the revenue records as Dharamshala was originally established for stay and residence of one Braham Dass, an udasi saint, and for stay of saintly travellers. The land, which had been attached to Dharamshala was used for arranging Katha, Kirtan and religious discourses by udasi saint. Free langar service was also provided to such saints. After Braham Dass, it fell to Gobind Dass son of Braham Dass for its administration and during his management, the property had been mortgaged to one Raja Ram and he left for pilgrimage never to return back. In the year 1917-18, the management of the institution, therefore, was taken by the Lambardars of the village and since then the property was being managed for the purpose of charities connected with the Dharamshala. In the course of time, however, the Lambardars converted the Dharamshala into a school and had leased out the lands and were taking the income for themselves without actually performing any of the charities. The plaintiffs contend that they were interested in due performance and sought for the direction for settling a scheme under Section 92 CPC to direct the defendants to account for the income that they earned and for due performance of the charities connected with the trust.
(3.) Though it is contended that there was no religious or charitable purpose attached, they were in the course of trial prepared to admit that the property was not their own personal property and that it had been in the revenue records shown as belonging to Dharamshala. PW-1 Avtar Singh had admitted that the land had been gifted by the original settlors of the village to udasi sect for religious and charitable purpose. There was oral evidence of witnesses as well to vouch for dedication of the building and the property for charitable purposes and the Court on a consideration of evidence found that the property was established for charitable and religious purposes. Adverting to the issue of whether the plaintiffs have the locus standi to institute the suit and whether as persons, who are not themselves followers of udasi sect, they could maintain the action, the trial Court reasoned that an application had been filed disclosing their own interest under Section 92 CPC along with the plaint and the Court granted the permission holding that they were as members of the public interested in seeing that the property was used for the charitable purposes and allowing for religious travellers to stay and for performance of katha, kirtan and giving langar. The Court held that they were entitled to maintain the suit. It was in evidence that properties had been periodically rented out but here had been no proof of any performance of charity out of the income released therefrom. The Court, therefore, found that the defendants, who had been in possession of property and management, were not as owners but as persons, who were attending to the affairs of the Dharamshala, were liable to account and granted a decree settling a scheme directing the defendants to account for the income. The Court directed that a society will be formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act and the elected body of seven adult residents of village Dangora will constitute the managing committee. The names of the adult members will be taken from the list of voters from the Legislative Assembly at the relevant time and that the members of the acting committee shall hold office for two years from the date of election, which would be held a week prior to the expiry of previous term. The Court also provided that the scheme shall ensure that the managing committee would be constituted on 18.03.1985 or on any convenient date within a period of two months through an election under the supervision of the Naib Tehsildar, Elections stationed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana. The defendants themselves were not dislocated wholly but they were given the power to hold the office for their life time.;