RAM NARAIN Vs. JAI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act XX of 1863. The plaintiff in the suit was In the line of the founders of the endowment in favour of the temple of Sri Mahadevji and Hanumanji. It was alleged in the plaint that the properties, detailed in the foot thereof and comprising -- (1) a Dharamshala and temple of Mahadevji and Hanumanji and a well including a Sahdari and garden, (2) one Nohra including Khatties, two shops now converted into two garages, and one house, (3) Rs. 15,385/4/- standing in the Khata of the Dharamshala on the 16th of August, 1932 and (4) other articles belonging to the Dharamshala such as utensils, beds, carpets etc., -- were dedicated to the said temple in Sambat 1953, but as there was no formal deed, disputes relating to the said endowment were referred to arbitration on the 20th of August 1933 when a scheme for the management and upkeep of the deities and its properties was settled by the Arbitrators. Under the said scheme, the plaintiff was appointed the President of the endowment and defendant No. (1) was appointed its Secretary and defendant No. (2) was appointed as its Trustee. The defendant No. 1 it was alleged mismanaged the affairs of the Trust and conducted himself contrary to the specific terms and conditions of the scheme and was liable to removal from trusteeship.

(2.) The amended reliefs prayed for were:--(1) the defendant No. (1) be ordered to render and explain accounts of the Trust property from 20th August 1932, (2) the defendant No. (1) be removed from the Trusteeship. It may be noted that the deleted reliefs asked that a decree for damages for the amount due be passed against defendant No. (1) and for the appointment of another Trustee and the ordering of defendant No. (1) to deliver possession of the Trust property to the plaintiff and defendant No. (2).

(3.) Defendant No. (1), the appellant L. Ram Narain, filed a written statement. There was a denial that there had been mismanagement of the Trust or that the defendant No (1) had acted contrary to the terms and conditions of the scheme aforesaid. It was pleaded that the accounts had been regularly maintained and that the Trustees have been seeing and examining the accounts and no objection was ever taken to the same. In the additional pleas it was denied that there was any such temple as was alleged by the plaintiff or that any trust of a public character had come into existence. It was pleaded that there was no endowment, the trust was neither public nor a religious trust, but that it Was a private and charitable trust, instituted by the parties and their ancestors, that the provisions of Act XX of 1863 were not applicable to the endowment nor was the defendant No. 1 a trustee or manager within the meaning of Section 14 of Act XX of 1863. It was therefore pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction. It was pleaded that the proceedings should have been taken under Section 92 C. P. C. and no sanction having been obtained as required therein, the suit was bad. Other pleas were also taken with which we need not concern ourselves.