SHANKAR DEYAL SINGH SON OF LATE SHEO GAHAN SINGH Vs. PRESIDENT BIHAR RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD PATNA VIDYAPATI MARG PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd of February, 2002 in Miscellaneous Case No.5 of 1998 passed by the District Judge, Buxar on an application filed by the appellants under sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as ,,the Act). The said miscellaneous case upon hearing was dismissed as per the order under appeal. The appellants on being aggrieved preferred the above appeal.

(2.) THE short relevant facts for disposal of the present appeal are that a temple in the name of "Sri Thakurjee and Ram Laxman Janki and Hanumanjee" is situated in Village Dharhara, P.S. Dumraon within the District of Buxar. THE said temple was established by one Mahanth Raghav Das. One Ram Prasad Das and Deo Nandan Das used to live with Raghav Das and helped in performing Puja etc. of the said temple and after the death of Mahanth Raghav Das, his Chela Mahanth Ram Prasad Das gifted the property, including the land in the name of the above Deity and constituted a Trust Committee consisted of five persons, including the appellants. Later Title Suit No.29 of 1986 was filed by said Mahanth Ram Prasad Das to declare the said gift being not valid, however, the said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 25th of January, 1991, as contained in Annexure 2 to the memo of appeal, holding to the effect that the gift in favour of the deity was valid. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the appellants filed Title Appeal No.6 of 1991. However, during the pendency of the appeal, Mahanth Ram Prasad Das died and in his place one Sita Dasi, who was associated with the temple, was substituted. THE said appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise between said Sita Dasi and appellants, vide judgment and decree dated 17th of May, 1993(Annexure 3). THE further relevant facts are that the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") on receiving the general complaints from the villagers that the appellants, who were the members of the Trust, used to mismanage the affairs of the temple and were alienating the property and using the property of the temple as personal property, examined the matter in terms of the provisions of section 32(1) and (2) of the Act and reconstituted the Trust under the Chairmanship of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon as per notification dated 17th of August, 1996, as contained in Annexure 5 to the memo of appeal, after giving notice to the appellants. THE appellants, who were the members of previous Trust, assailed the aforesaid notification by filing a writ petition in this Court vide CWJC No.10344 of 1996. THE same was, however, dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 28th of March, 1997, vide Annexure 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private respondents. THE appellants thereafter filed Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 1997 before the Authority under the Act in terms of section 43 with a prayer to stay the functioning of the newly constituted Trust. THE prayer for stay was refused vide order dated 27.6.1998. While the said miscellaneous case remained pending, the appellants filed Miscellaneous Case No.5 of 1998 before the District Judge, Buxar under sub- section (3) of section 32 of the Act assailing the aforesaid notification dated 17.8.1996 (Annexure 5) constituting the new Trust. THE said miscellaneous case upon hearing of all the parties was dismissed by order dated 2 nd of February, 2002, as contained in Annexure 3 to the memo of appeal. THE appellants assailed the aforesaid order by filing a writ petition in this Court, vide CWJC No.3698 of 2002, which was, however, found to be not maintainable and dismissed with liberty to the petitioners-appellants to avail the remedy of appeal under section 55 of the Act. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) WITH regard to the mismanagement of the affairs of the temple, on the one hand the allegation was that the appellants were misusing the property of the deity and claiming the property as their personal property, on the other hand, the allegation of alienating or mismanaging the affairs of the temple is denied. The appellants claimed the previous trust as private trust. Besides the private trust, it was also claimed by them that after the death of the original Mahanth Raghav Das, Ram Prasad Das and Deo Nandan Das inherited the property of Raghav Das along with temple and accordingly their names were recorded in the revenue record as tenant and revisional survey khatiyan in respect of the property of Late Raghav Das as a raiyat and said Ram Prasad Das executed a deed of gift in the name of the deity and constituted the Trust being the private one.