RAM DASS Vs. THAKURDWARA RADHA KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has impugned the judgment dated 4.1.1991 passed by the court of Additional District Judge whereby the judgment and decree of the trial judge dated 5.4.1983 was set aside. The Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 5.4.1983 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff. This was a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendant society seeking a prayer that the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 16.12.1969 delivering articles of the Radha Krishan Bhagwan Mandir, Najafgarh, Delhi to the defendant society be declared null and void with a further prayer that the defendant society be directed to hand over the management of the Mandir to the plaintiff.

(2.) Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is as follows: (i) Late Mahant Manohar Dass a renowned practitioner in the Ayurvedic system of medicine had out of his professional income built various temples, acquired agricultural land, religious places such as piyao and dispensaries. (ii) Late Mahant Manohar Dass had executed his last will and testament dated 1.11.1953 by virtue of which he had bequeathed his Ayurvedic Dawakhana to Ram Chander and Pooja Path sewa to Net Ram. As per this will the Mahant had authorized one Jai Ram Dassji to give Ram Dass (plaintiff) in adoption to Net Ram. (iii) This will of late Mahant Manohar Dass had been probated in a probate petition filed on 10.5.1957. The order of the Additional District Judge dated 10.5.1957 was confirmed by the Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 6.8.1965. (iv) By virtue of this will the Pooja Path Sewa dwelt upon Net Ram and the right to look after the Dawakhana fell to the share of Ram Chander. (v) Net Ram died on 18.12.1966. On the same day, the temple was sealed. (vi) In early 1967 under Section 25 of the Police Act the temple property being unclaimed was sealed by the police. (vii) On 25.8.1967 the seal of the temple was opened.

(3.) This is a second appeal. On 8.3.1995 the appeal was admitted and following three substantial questions of law have been formulated which inter alia read as follows: "1. Whether the judgment of probate case is judgment-in-rem and if it is so, can the civil court (not the probate court) again probe into the matter and give its finding contrary to the judgment of probate case? 2. When the judgment of probate case is judgment-in-rem will that be not resjudicate for all subsequent suits of title in respect of same property? 3. Whether the police can put seal over the immoveable properties U/s 25 of Police Act, 1861 as unclaimed as was done in the present case particularly when the word "property" in this section is defined as moveable property only?"