MUKUTSINGH SIKARWAR Vs. MOORTI SHRI DWARKADHISHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH it is an appeal challenging the order passed on 20-2-1990 by the trial Court purporting to act under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, the contentions pressed assailing that order are of far-reaching effect. Maintainability of the suit itself is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) APPARENTLY, there are two sets of suitors vying with each other to obtain control and management of a place of worship. Admittedly, however, substantial property valued at several lakhs of rupees, according to plaintiffs own case, is the subject-matter of a Trust. At paragraph 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff/respondent has stated that by registered document executed on 28-11-1901, late Kanhaiyalal had entrusted the Mandir and the property attached thereto to five panchas. How the management of the temple continued thereafter or who were the subsequent trustees during the period of twenty years following death of the settlor is not clearly stated, but at para 4, there is sudden jump to 1956. It is stated that on 19-3-1956, "managing Committee" had constructed three shops when the Secretary was Durga Prasad who had obtained order on 19-3-1956 from the Municipal Committee. Thereafter, for 25 years, one Nathulal son of Vedmal made some more constructions in the premises. However, what has come on record is that the plaintiff, which has described itself as a society having Registration No. 8985, was registered on 244-1980 under M. P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, for short, the 1973 Adhiniyam. The Certificate is issued to "murti Shri Dwarakadhishji Maharaj, Virajman Mandir Thakur Dwarakadhishji, Morar, Gwalior". Another document which has come on record is said to be an order passed by Registrar of Public Trusts on 14-7-1981 under the provisions of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, for short, the 1951 Act. In that document, names of all the 11 defendants/appellants figure as trustees and indeed, defendant/appellant No. 1, Col. Mukut Singh Sikarwar is named as Chief Turstee. . .

(3.) SHRI R. D. Jain, appearing for defendants/appellants, has rightly complained that the suit, as framed, is barred by Section 2 (4) read with Section 27 (4) of 1951 Act. He has contended that on plaintiff's own admission, the property in question in respect to which management rights were only claimed by the plaintiff/society, was ''public trust" within the meaning of Section 2 (4) of 1951 Act, which I quote :