TEMPLE ACHLESHWAR Vs. TEMPLE SHRI ACHLESHWAR PUBLIC TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent appeal has been preferred against the order dated 13.8.1987 passed by the learned Single Judge in civil misc. appeal No. 103 of 1987 in which the learned Judge upheld the order dated 1.8.87 passed by the District Judge Gwalior whereby the plaint of the appellants was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. and ad interim direction granted under 0.39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. was vacated.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal shortly narrated are that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit purporting to be u/ s 92 C.P.C. for a number of reliefs. It is significant to mention here that the suit was filed by the Temple Shri Achleshwar through Pujari Ramdhar and one Vinod Kumar Gupta against Temple Shri Achleshwar Public Trust through executive trustee and others. It was claimed that plaintiff No. 1 had been assisting his Mama Harnarayan in Sewa and Puja of the temple Achleshwar Maharaj from the time he attained the age of discretion and after his death he had been acting as Pujari and had been doing Sewa Puja right from the morning. He had also been doing Aarti, Pujan etc., while plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 were dedicated devotee. There had been dispute as to whether the Temple Achleshwar is private property or public property but defendant No. 1, in reality wife of Hargovind Mishra, claiming as the wife of late Harnarayan along with others in order to usurp the money of the temple moved an application before the Registrar claiming to be herself as executive trustee and other persons mentioned in trust-deed as holders of various offfices. The trust-deed has been annexed with the plaint. Ultimately, the trust was registered as Achleshwar Mahadev Mandir Gwalior, situated at Sanatandharm Mandir Road, Lashkar. The bye-laws were presented on 30.10.76 on.which plaintiffs raised objections as they were neither in the interest of public nor of the temple. Actually the executive trustee should have been plaintiff No. 1 Pujari Ramadhar but the defendants practising fraud on the Registrar Public Trusts, got defendant No. 1 nominated as executive trustee and got a direction that 40% of the Sewa Puja will be for her personal use throughout her life and thereafter it will belong to her legal representatives though she never went for darshan in the temple. Details of the objections claimed by the plaintiffs against the bye-laws have been mentioned in para 4 of the plaint. Out of the remaining 60% of the income 10% was to be spent on religious purposes, 30% for charity, 15% for special expenses and 5% for development of the temple and for construction of shops.etc. Inspite of the creation of the trust the trustess, specially the executive trustee, violated the provisions of the M.P. Public Trusts Act and the violations have been narrated in para 5 and 6, The defendants had mismanaged the temple and were usurping the chadhotari amount. They were also neglecting the aims and objects of the Trust. Defendant No. 1 therefore distentitled herself to be an executive trustee as her acts were against the interest of the Trust. Defendants were causing demanges to remove the management immediately. On these allegations as many as 11 reliefs were claimed against defendants.

(3.) The defendants contested the claim and raised preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable u/s 27(4) of the M.P. Public Trusts Act. The plaintiffs ought to have taken action u/s 26 of the said Act. The plaintiffs, in any case ought to have taken steps u/s 26 and consequently the suit was not maintainable. The other allegations have also been denied by the defendants. We need not detail those allegations as they are not relevant for the disposal of this appeal. We may, however, mention that the plaintiffs also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and an order was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. That application was also opposed.