THAKUR RADHA KRISHNAJI MAHARAJ Vs. RAM PRASAD PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern Second Appeals Nos. 199 and 212 of 1968. Both these second appeals arise out of the same suit filed on behalf of Sri Thakur Radha Krishnaji Maharaj Birajman Mandir Waqey House Murtaza Nagar, District Unnao through a next friend named Raja Ram in the court of Civil Judge Unnao. The allegations contained in the plaint were that a temple was constructed by Sewak Ram Pandey who also dedicated some property to this temple under a waqf deed dated 30th July, 1906. He appointed himself as the first Mutawalli and laid down a scheme of management and appointment of subsequent Mutawallis and managers, Sewak Ram died in 1918 and after his death his eldest son Raja Ram became the Manager and Mutawalli of this waqf. Raja Ram also died on 26-7-1965. According to the plaintiff, Raja Ram had under his will appointed Ram Gopal defendant No. 1 as a Mutwalli after his death. Subsequently his appointment was also confirmed by a Supervisory Committee known as Dharam Sabha which had also been provided by the dedicator under the deed of waqf. The members of the Dharam Sabha, according to the plaintiff, were defendants Nos. 6 to 8. The defendant No. 2 Ram Prasad (who is respondent No. 1 in these appeals) began to interfere unlawfully with the management of this temple and the property attached to it. The plaintiff therefore filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge for framing a scheme of management and appointing defendant No. 1 Ram Gopal as Manager and in case he was not considered a fit person for this appointment, it was prayed that Ram Krishna, the next friend of the idol, may be appointed as such Manager and Mutawalli, and in case he too was not found suitable, the Court may appoint any other person as Manager and Mutawalli out of the male descendants of the dedicator Sewak Ram.

(2.) THE suit was contested by defendant No. 2 Ram Prasad Pandey who pleaded inter alia that it was a public waqf and not a private waqf. As such the court of Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and frame a scheme of management. A suit of this nature ought to have been filed in the court of the District Judge after complying with the formalities prescribed by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) AGAINST that decision the defendant Ram Prasad filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge challenging the various findings recorded by the trial court. Another appeal against that decision was filed on behalf of the plaintiff making a grievance that under the scheme to be framed, a direction should have been given by the trial court regarding the appointment of defendant No. 1 Ram Gopal Pandey or the next friend of the plaintiff as Manager and Mutawalli.