N.M. KASLIWAL, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision by the defendant is directed against an order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, Camp Gangapur City, dated 22nd March, 1977, deciding certain preliminary issues in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) I need not mention the full details of the case, as the short contro-versy for determination in this revision is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was covered under sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter) referred to as the 'Act') or not. The learned lower court framed an issue No. 13 in this regard to the following effect: "Whether the suit is not maintainable under the Trust Act.?" The learned trial Court decided this issue against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. Hence this revision has been filed by the defendant-petitioner. The plaintiff filed this suit on 14th July, 1973, on the allegation that about 50 years ago Bhonri Lal and Kanhaiya Lal. who were brothers, constructed a "Dharamshala" a well, and a temple of Shivji, in Gangapur City and also constructed a well, and a 'Dharamshala' and a Bagichi in village Mirzapur and dedicated the above properties for the use of the public at large. Bhonri Lal after the death of Kanhaiya Lal adopted one Bhagwati & Bhagu and also executed a will in his favour on 11th Feb., 1944. and apart from the above properties made him the owner of some more properties. The said Bhagwati Lai sought permission for constructing four shops in the Dharamshala at Gangapur City on 10th November, 1963. When Bhagwati Lal became old then he executed a trust deed on 18th December, 1966 and appointed the plaintiff as a trustee which was also registered on 19th December, 1966. After the execution of the aforesaid trust deed Bhagwati Lal handed ower the possession of the entire properties to the plaintiff as a trustee and since then the plaintiff was managing and discharging the duties as a trustee with regard to the entire trust property. It is further alleged that on 19th December, 1966, Bhagwati Lal also executed a will in his favour. It is further alleged that the defendant by practising a fraud got an adoption deed executed in his favour on 2nd September. 72 by Bhagwati Lal and got the same registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar Tehsil Gangapur City while in fact the defendant was never adopted by Bhagwati Lal nor any ceremonies of adoption were ever performed. When Bhagwati Lal came to know of the real facts, he executed a cancellation deed on 11th October, 1972 of the adoption deed dated 2nd September, 1972, and got the same registered be fore the Sub-Registrar, Gangapur City It was further alleged that on the basis of the above adoption deed, the defendant was trying to obtain forcible possession over the trust property and is also interfering in the management of the plaintiff On the basis of the above pleadings it has been prayed that it may be declared that the plaintiff was a legal trustee of the aforesaid trust property and had a right to manage those properties. It is further prayed that the adoption deed dated 2nd September, 1972, may be declared invalid and be cancelled. Lastly it is prayed that the defendant may be restrained from a permanent injunction not to interfere in the management of the plaintiff in regard to the trust property. The defendant, apart from other objections also took the plea that the present suit was not maintainable under sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 which reads as under: "S. 29 Bar against suits by unregistered trust - (1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which is required to be registered under this Act but has not been so registered shall be heard or decided in any court. (2) - The provisions of sub-sec. (1) shall apply to a claim of set off or other proceedings to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust." The learned trial Court took the view that the suit of the present kind was not a suit to enforce a right 01 behalf of a public trust within the meaning of sec. 29 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a suit filed by the plaintiff in the present case is for a declaration that he is a legally appointed trustee of the trust properties and also for injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the management of such property and as such it was a suit which was filed clearly in order to enforce aright on behalf of a public trust. According to a government notification dated 28th June, 1962, under sec. 1 of the Act the provisions of Chapter V, VI, VII, VIII and IX came into force on 1st July, 1962, and applied to all public trusts through out the State of Rajasthan whose gross annual income from all sources whatsoever was not less than Rs. 3,000/-or the total valuation of the assets whereof was not less than Rs. 30,000/-. It is contended that in pursuance to the above notification the properties belonging to the trust were having a valuation of more than Rs. 50,000/- and as such sec. 29 which falls in Chapter V of the Act becomes applicable to the suit. In the absence of such trust being registered with the Charity Department the present suit was not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Jagannath vs. Satya Narayan (l). On the other hand, Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the present suit was essentially for the cancellation of the adoption deed alleged to have been made in favour of the defendant on 2nd September, 1972, and this was not a suit to enforce a right on behalf of the trust. It is also argued that even if the trial Court has taken an erroneously or wrong view of law, this court is not entitled to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. I have carefully gone through the plaint. The entire reading of the plaint shows that whatever rights or reliefs the plaintiff wants to be decided in his favour are based in his capacity as a trustee of the trust property. It is not disputed that the trust property includes 'Dharamshala' and temple. The purpose of enacting the Rajasthan Public Trust Act was to regulate and to make belter provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trust in the State of Rajasthan. The Legislature in its wisdom thought it proper that such trust should be got registered in the Charitable department under section 17 of the Act and consequance thereof section 29 was enacted laying down a bar against suits by unregistered trusts. The plaintiff not only wants declaration that he is a legelly appointed trustee but has also sought an injunction against the defendant that he may be restrained from interfering in the management of such trust property by the plaintiff. Thus it is a case undoubtedly one for enforcement of a right on behalf of a public trust. The question whether it is required to be registered under this Act or not can only be determined after the decision of the question whether the valuation of the property or its gross annual income from all sources falls within the purview of the notification dated 28th June, 1962 or not. The learned Additional District Judge shall first decide whether the trust property falls Within the purview of the notification dated June 28, 1962on the basis of the valuation, in case he arrives at the conclusion that the gross annual income of the trust property from all sources is less the Rs. 3,000/- or the tolal valuation of the assets is less than Rs. 30,000/- in that case there would be no necessity to get the trust registered under section 17 of the Act and he may proceed with the suit. In case he holds that the valuation of the assets is not less than Rs. 30,000/- or the gross annual income from all sources is not less than Rs. 3,003/- in that case he would grant an opportunity to the plaintiff to get the trust registered. The bar under section 29 is only for hearing and deciding the suit of the kind which falls within the purview of this section. There is no bar to entertain such suit and as such the trial Court shall not dismiss the suit but will not hear or decide till such trust is registered in case he holds that the notification dated 28th June, 1962, applies to such trust. I see no force in the contention of Mr. Purohit that this court cannot interfere in the exercises of its revisional jurisdiction with the impugned order of the trial Court. Section 29 creates a clear bar for hearing or deciding such suit and thus it is a matter of jurisdiction going to the very root of the matter. If court committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing any order then this court is certainly entitled to interfere under section 115 Code of Civil Procedure. I am clearly of the opinion that the impugned order falls within the purview of section 115 Code of Civil Procedure and this Court is entitled to interfere in case the order has been wrongly passed by the trial Court.
(3.) IN the result this revision is allowed, the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur Camp Gangapur City dated 22nd March, 1977 is set aside and he is directed to proceed in accordance with observations made above. IN the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs of this revision.;