SUKH RAM SINGH Vs. BAIJ NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RISAL Singh son of Bindra Singh, a resident of village Terha, Pargana Sumerpur, district Hamirpur, created religious endowment for the temple of Thakurji Ram Jankiji. He gifted certain land and created a trust for the temple by a registered document dated 23-9-1932. According to the Trust deed after the death of RISAL Singh, his nephew Gajedhar Singh son of Shivraj Singh, was to be the Manager and thereafter only such a person could be elected Sarbarakar who was lineal descendant of RISAL Singh provided he was religious and fit for the said office. In due course of time Sukhram Singh became Manager and Sarbarakar of the temple. Baijnath Singh and others, opposite parties, made an application under section 18 of the Religious Endowment Act, No. XX of 1963, on 10-12-1974 seeking permission to institute a suit against the Manager and Sarbarakar. The District Judge granted permission to the opposite parties to institute a suit against the applicant by his order dated 3-5-1978. The applicant thereupon filed a revision application in this Court.

(2.) THE revision application came up for hearing before Hon'ble Satish Chandra, C. J. An objection was raised by the counsel for the applicant that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Raghubar Dial v. Kesho Ramanuj Dass, (1889) ILR-XI Alld. 18 the Religious Endowment Act, 1863, (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. XX of 1863) was not applicable to religious endowment which came into existence after 1863 and as such the District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant permission. On behalf of the opposite parties a number of decisions of this Court and other Courts were relied upon in support of his contention that Act XX of 1863 was applicable to a religious endowment which may have come into being even after 1863. Since Raghubar Dial's case was decided by a Full Bench of three Judges the learned Chief Justice referred the following question to a larger Bench :-

(3.) THE question in the instant case has arisen on account of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Raghubar Dial's case. In that case the question referred to the Full Bench was with regard to the maintainability of the suit under the Hindu Law by the plaintiff with reference to section 30 and 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1863. Straight, J. held that the suit was not maintainable under the Hindu law, as the trust was one for public religious purpose, therefore the suit was not maintainable without the sanction required by section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE learned Judge further held that even if section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure was inapplicable and the Religious Endowment Act XX of 1863 would apply, the suit could not be maintained without the sanction required by that Act. Sir John Edge, C. J. also held that the suit must fail for non-compliance with the provisions of section 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE learned Chief Justice without considering the provisions of Act XX of 1863 in detail made the following observation :