DALIP SINGH Vs. PURAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. Rohtak, dated June 11, 1965, whereby the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs was affirmed.

(2.) Dalip Singh and other plaintiff-appellants, after obtaining consent of the Advocate-General, filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the removal of Puran Dass respondent, the sole trustee, and rendition of accounts on the allegations that a public trust of religious and charitable nature known as Dharamshala Ralwa Guru Nanak Shah Dhuni Sangat Bakhsh had been created by one Madho Ram, who constructed one tank, a pucca well and a Dharamshala where Guru Granth was daily recited and the wayfarers and the faqirs were provided shelter and meals. It was further alleged in the plaint that land measuring 50 Bighas was given as Dohli by the owners/proprietors of Patti Jatan, Sonepat, for meeting the expenses of the said trust and another 100 Bighas of land was donated for the same purpose by the Biswedars of village Barwasni and Hassanpur. The removal of the defendant, the present trustee and manager of the trust, was sought on two grounds, firstly that he had married and thereby lost the right to continue as the manager and secondly that he had been utilising the income of the trust property for his personal use instead of for the purpose of the trust. The plaintiffs claimed their right to maintain the suit on the grounds that they were beneficiaries of the said trust and were also the descendants of the proprietors who had donated the said 50 Bighas of land for the purpose of the trust.

(3.) The respondent contested the suit and controverted the allegations made in the plaint. It was pleaded by him that the Dharamshala was founded by his forefathers and he was its sole owner. The existence of any public trust of a religious or charitable nature was denied. The defendant also did not admit that he had married or had a wife and a child, as alleged in the plaint. The locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit was also challenged. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-