ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Under challenge is the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereafter 'the Appellate Court') upsetting the order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereafter 'the Trial Court') dismissing the respondents-plaintiffs' (hereafter 'plaintiffs') application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC and restraining the petitioners defendants (defendants) from interfering with the suit property recorded in the name of the Mandir Shri Ladli Ji Ramganj Bazar (hereafter 'the Trust') registered under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereafter 'the Act of 1959') of which Sanjay Goswami was the recorded Mahant in the records of the Devasthan Department. The defendants were also restrained by the interim injunction passed by the Appellate Court from obstructing the Mahant-Sanjay Goswami in managing the affairs of the Trust including the temple thereof. They were also injucted from alienating the suit property. It was further directed by the Appellate Court that the rent of the shops, god owns, and residential premises recorded as trust property being collected by the defendants, be deposited in a joint bank account of the defendants and the plaintiffs as also be current rent month to month, and be withdrawn only with their consent of the parties or otherwise by the order/s of the Court.
(2.) Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Daulat Sharma for the defendant submitted that the registration of the suit property as a trust property is itself a subject matter of multiple suits including one for partition filed at Mathura, in the year 2005. Further a suit for cancellation of the trust registered by the Devasthan Department under the Act of 1959 and declaration of the rights of the co-parceners in the suit property has been filed at Jaipur. Interim orders of "status-quo", have been passed in the aforesaid suits and are presently in currency. Mr.M.M. Ranjan submitted that even otherwise nothing in the plaint and the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiffs in the underlying suit, to which the present petition relates, was stated with regard to the plaintiff-Sanjay Goswami acting as the Mahant of the trust property or otherwise engaged in management and the seva puja of the deity in the temple of the Trust. Yet despite the trial court in its considered discretion having dismissed the plaintiffs' application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC on the aforesaid legally valid grounds as no prima facie case was made out in their favour, nor was balance of convenience, the Appellate Court has interfered therewith without just cause arbitrarily superimposed its discretion on that of the trial court, passed an order of injunction against the defendants which operates in the nature of a final order and has the effect of displacing the defendant from his rights of being engaged in the affairs of the suit property and seva puja at the temple for decades. It has been submitted that in the circumstances this petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Appellate Court in the plaintiffs' Civil Misc. Appeal No.32/2016 quashed and set aside, while the order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Misc. Appeal No.213/2006 (45/2012) deserves to be restored.
(3.) Per contra, Mr.Sudhanshu Kasliwal Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Yellop Singh for the plaintiffs submitted that the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Appellate Court is a well considered and detailed order interfering with the order dated 31.5.2016 passed by the Trial Court for reasons of its palpable perversity in overlooking the prima facie case as made out by the plaintiffs, the balance of convenience obtaining in their favour and the plaintiffs, a registered trust and its Mahant being denied their legal and statutory rights to manage its affairs and engage in the seva puja of the deity while protecting the suit property and the proceeds thereon from renting out of shops, god owns and residential premises for the benefit of the trust/deity. It was submitted that the plaintiff-Trust was registered on 1.2.1966 by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department under Section 21 of the Act of 1959. A certificate of registration of the trust was issued by the Devasthan Department on 5.4.1966. At the relevant time the sole trustee was Jugal Kishore. In terms of form-VI appended to the Act of 1959, the mode of succession of the sole trustee of the trust has been set out and is binding in law. Thereunder the sole trustee/Mahant on his death is to be succeeded by his eldest son. Clause IV of form-6 appended to the Act of 1959 in respect of the plaintiff trust categorically provides that none else (emphasis mine) other than the eldest son of a deceased sole trustee/Mahant would have any right in the management and affairs of the trust and thus act as Mahant. It was submitted that the elder son of Jugal Kishore, the then Mahant, one Brij Kishore suffered an incapacity for reasons of which vide will dated 27.10.1986 executed by Jugal Kishore it was stated that following his death, Sanjay Goswami, the eldest son of Brij Kishore would succeed Jugal Kishore as the Mahant subsequent to his death. Jugal Kishore expired on 1.1.1987. On an application then made to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 on the strength of the mode of succession of the registered trust and the will dated 27.10.1986 Sanjay Goswami plaintiff No.2 was duly recognized as Mahant vide order dated 26.8.1987 in the records of the Devasthan Department. This after statutory procedure being followed and no objection to the Mahant of Sanjay Goswami despite public notice. Even by the predecessor of the petitioner defendants or Brij Kishore the other brother Ram Kishore Goswami. In fact Sanjay Goswami executed a power of attorney in favour of his older uncle Ram Kishore Goswami (chacha)- the proforma defendants in the petition to act on his behalf in the management of the trust and carry on the seva puja of the deity. The predecessor in interest of the plaintiff-late Shri Ram Kishore Goswami, the younger uncle (chacha) of Sanjay Goswami (Mahant) who had resided in the same trust, propriety all along during his life till his death at no point of time objected either to Sanjay Goswami being entered as a Mahant of the trust in the records of the Devasthan Department, the annuity by the State being issued to him or the seva puja and the management of the trust being carried out on the basis of Sanjay Goswami's power of attorney to Ram Kishore Goswami.;