HANUMAN DEOSTHAN Vs. JAIWANT WASUDEO PULLARWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is at the instance of original plaintiffs. The suit was initially decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. The appellants and the respondents shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:

(3.) Defendants had filed common Written Statement. The defendants contend that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the instant suit as no permission of the Charity Commissioner was taken. Defendants deny that Bansilal was Wahiwatdar of the Math. It is contended that the document executed by Yashoda is sham, bogus and nominal. Defendants do not however dispute that Chhotelal had applied for registration of the public trust known as Hanuman Deosthan. Defendants however deny that the suit property is shown as trust property in the register of trust. Defendants deny that the suit property is the property of the Presiding deity of Hanuman Deosthan. Defendants are in occupation of the property since 30 years. They are paying the taxes. They submit that they are the Wahiwatdar and they are taking care of the Pooja which is offered there and the festivals that are celebrated there. It is contended that defendant No. 1 has been Wahiwatdar of the said property which is a private trust property openly, peacefully and without interruption for more than 30 years. In the additional pleadings the defendants contend that defendant No. 1 was disciple of Haridas Baba. When defendants found that the house in suit was found cared for he started occupying the house and started performing Pooja and Aarti of the Paduka of the said Haridas Baba. He was maintaining the house in proper way and carrying out repairs and was paying the taxes. He was never obstructed by anybody. Haridas Baba according to them was a great Saint. He died 65 years ago. He took Samadhi and house belonging to Haridas is not a Math. Padukas were not installed by Bansilal. The suit house was bearing House No. 143 and then it was changed to House No. 492 which is later came to be changed as House No. 104. The defendants therefore contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed.