CHAMPA LAL Vs. MEETHA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dtd. 8/10/1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bali in Civil Appeal (Decree) No.42/1986 (36/1982) whereby the regular first appeal as preferred by the appellant against judgment and decree dtd. 12/7/1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Sirohi in Civil Original No.40/1979 stood dismissed. Vide judgment and decree dtd. 12/7/1982, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to decree the representative suit for eviction as preferred by the plaintiffs. The Court also proceeded on to pass a decree for mesne profit in favour of the plaintiffs for an amount of Rs.204.00 for the period from 1/3/1978 to the date of institution of the suit.

(2.) Vide order dtd. 2/12/2003, while admitting the present appeal, following substantial questions of law were framed:

(3.) Arguing on the first question of law, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that a specific objection regarding the maintainability of the suit in terms of Sec. 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 1959') had been raised by the defendants with a submission that the Temple Trust was unregistered. The specific averment of the defendants was that the temple in question was a private property of two persons namely Seth Shri Panaraj and Munnilal. The construction of four disputed rooms was also undertaken by the said two owners of the temple only but the land on which the said rooms were constructed was of the ownership and possession of the defendants. The property of Jain Community/Jain Temple neither constitutes any public trust nor any such trust has been registered. Therefore, the learned Trial Court firstly was under an obligation to decide whether the Trust in question was a 'Public Trust' or a 'Private Trust'. It is only after the said determination been made, it could have been decided whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in question.