Thakur Ramjanki Birajman Mandir Thru. Sarbarahkar Mahant Narayan Achari and Anr. Vs Shatruhan Singh and Ors.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25661

Court No. - 8

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 74 of 2023

Revisionist :- Thakur Ramjanki Birajman Mandir Thru. Sarbarahkar Mahant Narayan Achari And Anr. Opposite Party :- Shatruhan Singh And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ishwar Dutt Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankit Pande,Girdhari Lal Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Shri I. D. Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionists and Dr. R. S. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Virendra Bhatt for the respondents.

¶7

Under challenge is an order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the District Judge, Ayodhya in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.32 of 1994 whereby an application moved by the respondents under section 92 CPC has been allowed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionists has assailed the order impugned on three grounds:

¶9

(i) In order to allow an application under section 92 CPC, the Court must be satisfied that the application in question relates to a public trust and in absence of any cogent finding on this regard an application cannot be allowed.

¶10

(ii) It is also urged that in the instant case the property which is said to belong to the deity was actually the personal property of Mahant Jaikrishna Achari who died on 14.09.1959 and since then the property has remained with the revisionists and he continued to deal with the same for the benefit of a private temple made by Late Mahant Jaikrishna

¶11

Achari. Since the temple and the property was the personal property of Mahant Jaikrishna Achari, hence there was no element of public trust, hence the application could not have been allowed.

¶12

(iii) Even otherwise the case set up by the respondents was based on an alleged Will dated 27.06.1959 said to have been executed by Mahant Jaikrishna Achari by which it was stated that a trust was created and the properties were dedicated to the deity. However, the fact remains that the said Will was never proved by the trust or the trustees, hence in absence of any proof of the said Will, it could not be said that the temple and the properties vested with the public trust. It was also pointed out that Mahant Jaikrishna Achari in his life time had contested litigation against the respondents (through their predecessor in interest) and at no point of time the property could be given to such persons who were already inimicable with Mahant Jaikrishna Achari during his life time and for the said reason the findings recorded by the District Judge Ayodhya are patently erroneous and cannot be sustained, accordingly the revision deserves to be allowed.

¶13

Dr. R. S. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent had filed an application under section 92 CPC wherein it was clearly stated that Mahant Jaikrishna Achari had executed his last registered Will dated 27.06.1959 and upon the death of Mahant Jaikrishna Achari, the properties vested with the deity of Sri Ram Janki and the same were being managed by the trust. The revisionists can not claim individual rights in the properties. The temple is a public temple where the public at large comes for darshan and since the revisionists were alienating the properties belonging to the temple deity and the trust, hence the application

¶14

under section 92 CPC was moved and noticing the facts and circumstances the District Judge has allowed the application and such an order cannot be said to be bad either in law nor it can be said that it suffers from any jurisdictional error, accordingly the revision deserves to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, Dr. Pandey has relied upon decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust and others, (2020) 4 SCC 321 and Swami Shivshankar Giri Chella Swami and another Vs. Satya Gyan Niketan and another, (2017) 4 SCC 771.

¶15

The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶16

The facts that emerge from the record are that admittedly the properties in question belonged to Mahant Jaikrishna Achari. He was recorded in his life time as bhumidhar of properties which were covered by the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act as well as other properties, upon which the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. was not applicable. The properties till date continue to remain recorded in the name of Mahant Narayan Achari the revisionist No.2 and no order of mutation or otherwise has been made in favour of the trust or any of the trustees who claimed on the basis of the alleged Will dated 26.06.1959. The order of mutation in favour of revisionist no.2 has not been challenged nor any title suit has been filed by the trust or trustees.

¶17

In this background the private respondents instituted a suit under section 92 CPC and sought the leave of the Court by moving an application.

¶18

Initially, the leave was granted under section 92 CPC by the District Judge concerned by means of order dated 29.04.1994. The revisionists challenged the said order by filing a civil revision before this Court

¶19

which was registered as Civil Revision No.48 of 1995. Since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the present revisionists, hence a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 01.04.2010 allowed the Civil Revision No.48 of 1995 and remitted the matter to the District Judge for deciding the matter afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶20

It is in this background the matter again came up before the District Judge who vide order dated 28.07.2023 allowed the application. The District Judge while considering the submissions and the material placed by the counsel for the parties before him found that on the basis of the Will dated 27.06.1959 Mahant Jaikrishna Achari had created a trust and dedicated on his properties to the deity Sri Ram Janki and it found that the said temple was a public trust, accordingly as there were complaints that the temple property was being alienated, accordingly the application under section 92 CPC was allowed.

¶21

This Court finds that before allowing an application under section 92 CPC, it is necessary to ascertain whether a trust has been constituted for public purposes. It is also to be ascertained whether there is any violation of the bylaws of the trust or any statutory provisions by the trustees to the determent of the trust. It is also to be determined whether the activities of the trust are against any statutory prescription or it is in violation of the properties and against the welfare of the beneficiaries.

¶22

In the aforesaid context, it would be seen that admittedly as per the respondents the trust came into the picture only on the basis of the registered Will said to have been executed by Mahant Jaikrishna Achari dated 27.06.1959. The aforesaid Will dated

¶23

27.06.1959 has been disputed, then the necessary corollary is that unless and until the Will is proved in accordance with law in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act till then the recital of relating to creation of the trust and dedication of properties to the deity and its actual nature, as mentioned in the Will could not be established.

¶24

It could have been a different situation where after the death of Mahant Jaikrishna Achari his Will had been given effect to and the said trust as per his wish would have started functioning. However, this is not the situation. Mahant Jaikrishna Achari expired on 14.09.1959 and since then there has been no pro active steps taken by the alleged trustees of the trust said to have been created by Mahant Jaikrishna Achari as per his last registered Will dated 27.06.1959. No effort was made to get the properties transferred and mutated in the name of the deity, temple or the trust. There is nothing on record to establish that the trust and the trustees are functioning and taking care of the trust properties as per the wishes of Mahant Jaikrishna Achari expressed in his alleged last Will dated 27.06.1959.

¶25

It will also be relevant to notice that once there was a dispute and the respondents have been challenging the status and right of the revisionists who handled the properties but surprisingly no effort was made to claim any right on the basis of the trust nor any trustees was made a party as required in terms of Order 31 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.

¶26

It will also be relevant to notice that there were certain inter-se dispute between Mahant Jaikrishna Achari and the predecessor of the respondents and these disputes continues even till after the death of

¶27

Mahant Jaikrishna Achari. In such circumstances, it was necessary to have brought certain material on record to indicate that the trust was functioning as per the wishes and as created by Mahant Jaikrishna Achari but as noticed above, the same has not been done. Thus, it will be seen that in absence of such vital material and information on record and by merely treating the Will dated 27.06.1959 as proved to come to the conclusion that the trust has been created and it is a public trust, this is not supported by any material nor by any statutory provision.

¶28

Assuming there was no challenge to the Will even then the Will being a testamentary instrument by which the trust is said to have been created and the property of Mahant Jaikrishna Achari was said to have been dedicated to the deity then the properties ought to have been mutated in the names of the deity/trust but there is no material on record.

¶29

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the said Will dated 27.06.1959 by which the trust was created was not put to any proof. This being so, this Court is of the clear opinion that first requirement regarding creation of a valid trust is not made out. Once this fact could not be substantiated and it could not be seen whether the nature of the trust was public or private. In absence of any material to come to any clear findings regarding the dedication of properties and creation of the public trust could not be ascertained. As a concomitant it also cannot be ascertained that there is any actual violation of the trust deed and that the trust/trustees were violating the wishes of the creator or it was working against the interest of the trust and its beneficiaries.

¶30

Having considered the decisions cited by the

¶31

learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, this Court finds that as far as the proposition laid therein a concerned, the same cannot be disputed but in the given facts and circumstances as noticed herein above, the same cannot be extended to the instant case.

¶32

For the aforesaid circumstances, merely relying upon the Will dated 27.06.1959 without any proof and coming to the conclusion that it is to be trust created by the Will for public and therefore invoking section 92 CPC is an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the District Judge.

¶33

For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the order dated 28.07.2023 is not sustainable in law and as such deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the Revision No.74 of 2023 is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.07.2023 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.32 of 1994 is set aside. The matter shall stand remitted to the District Judge who shall take note of the aforesaid observations and in case if the parties bring on record appropriate material and establish the dedication of properties to the deity and creation of a trust to merge the properties then it would examine the parameters as to whether there is any public or private trust and any violation which may permit the Court to grant the leave in terms of Section 92 CPC.

¶34

With the aforesaid liberty the civil revision is allowed. Costs are made easy.

¶35

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 ank

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Thakur Ramjanki Birajman Mandir Thru. Sarbarahkar Mahant Narayan Achari and Anr. v. Shatruhan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakur Ramjanki Birajman Mandir Thru. Sarbarahkar Mahant Narayan Achari and Anr. v. Shatruhan Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Huzaifa Khan Thru. Father Quayum Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Laxman and 24 Others vs Shri Ajay Chauhan, the Prin. Secy. Pubilc Work Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Genda Vs Rama Kant and Others

Noor Mohammad Vs U.P. Waqf Tribunal Lko. and Others

Gaurav Pratap Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Pooja Pandey and 43 Others vs Sri Parth Sarthi Sen Sharma Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and Another