TARA CHAND Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has arisen out of a suit filed in a representative capacity by respondent Nos. 1 of 4 for a declaration that the sale made by Smt. Savitri and Smt. Chandro, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, in favour of the appellant of the two vacant plots through sale deed dated December 20, 1962 was null and void and ineffective against the rights of the Hindu Public and Dev Karan Bhawan, a religious and charitable institution, alleged to be its owner. The case set up by them was that Dev Karan made an application to the Municipal Committee, Bhadurgarh for transfer of the land measuring 1 bigha for the construction of a dharamshala. The Municipal Committee passed the necessary resolution and after getting sanction of the commissioner transferred the land to him. Dev Karan then submitted plan, exhibit P-3, which was duly approved by the Committee and constructed a dharamshala in accordance therewith. As the dharamshala and the vacant lands around it since then are in the use of the Hindu community particularly and the public at large, respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the natural heirs of Dev Karan, have no proprietary interest in them and were not competent to sell the plots in dispute.

(2.) The suit was contested by the vendors as well as the vendee who asserted that the property in dispute was private property of Dev Karan and that the dharamshala was not a religious or charitable institution. The trial Court holding that the dharamshala, a religious and charitable institution, was the owner of the land in dispute, decreed the suit. Its findings having been affirmed, on appeal, by the Ld. District Judge, Rohtak, the vendee-defendant has come up in this second appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the correctness of the concurrent finding of the Courts below on the ground that from the evidence on record no inference of the setting up of a religious or charitable institution by Dev Karan would be drawn. He further argued that before an interference of a public trust would be drawn, a complete dedication and divestiture of the property has to be established. As there was no proof that Dev Karan ever dedicated the property in dispute to the idol set up in the dharamshala or to the general public nor he ever divested himself of its ownership, the inference drawn by the Courts below that he dharamshala was a public institution cannot be sustained. In support of his contention he relied on Chandu Lal v. Rampat Mal, 1933 AIR(Lah) 189, Prabhal Kumar v. Bhagwan Murli Manohar Birajman plaintiff, 1940 AIR(Oudh) 446 and Smt. Mahani Dasi and others v. Pareshnath Thakur, 1954 AIR(Ori) 198.