PRAHALAD KUSHWAHA Vs. RANI DEOMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.11.2007 passed in Misc. Judicial Case No.17/2007, by the Addl. District Judge Gadarwara, dismissing the claim made by the appellants, on an objection raised by respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C..

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that there was a public trust registered under the name and style of 'Dev Laxmi Narayan Ram Mandir Trust, Gangai , District Narsinghpur' (hereinafter referred to as Public Trust for short). It is contended that an application jointly was filed by the respondents No. 1 to 7, purporting to be made under Section 14 of Madhya Pradesh PublicTrust Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) before the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur-cumRegistrar Public Trust for grant of sanction to exchange the land of the Trust with the private land of the aforesaid respondents. It was contended that already a decision was taken to exchange the land and such a decision was already given effect to, therefore, such a permission may be granted. It is contended that on the basis of such an application, permission was granted by the Registrar Public Trust, which order was sought to be challenged in suo motu revision by the Collector, who passed an order on 7.12.1995 and by the said order, the order of the Registrar Public Trust was set aside. An appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur, but the same was dismissed. The order was challenged before the Board of Revenue in revision and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 28.3.2002 set aside the order of the Collector and confirmed the order of exchange passed by the Registrar Public Trust. Challenging the order of the Board of Revenue, a Writ Petition No.2671/2002 was filed before this Court, but the said writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, but a liberty was granted to the appellants to approach the Civil Court by instituting a Civil Suit, if so advised. The said order was challenged in a Writ Appeal before this Court and the writ appellate Court modified the order passed by the writ Court and instead of granting liberty to file a suit, it was held that the appellants may approach the authorities by making an application under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act within the parameters of law. It is contended that since such a provision was not applicable before the Registrar Public Trust, the suit itself was filed before the Court below under the aforesaid provisions and since objection with respect to the maintainability of the suit filed under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act was raised by the respondents, the Court below has allowed the objection and has dismissed such application of the appellants by the impugned order. Therefore, this appeal is required to be filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellants, vehemently, contended that a bare perusal of the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the Act will make it clear that no application could have been filed by the appellants before the Registrar Public Trust against the order passed by the Registrar Public Trust. Such an order was to be called in question only by way of filing a suit. It is contended that provisions of Section 27 of the Act prescribes the power of the Courts to hear the application and in exercise of this power, the Court below was required to hear the objection of the appellants with respect to the order passed by the Registrar Public Trust. It is further contended that a suit is barred under Section 32 of the Act and, thus, the Civil Suit was not to be filed by the appellants. Only an application under Sections 26 and 27 of the Act could have been filed by the appellants. However, instead of considering such provisions of law, since the application aforesaid has been rejected, which constitutes a decree, the appeal has been filed.