GHEESU DASS Vs. NARSINGH KANSARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this case is as to whether a person, who objects to a particular property to be the property of a Public Trust, could maintain a suit relating to that property under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The plaintiff-revision petitioner brought a suit under Section 22 of the Act claiming that Shri Narsingh Bhagwan Temple situated in Jalore was the private and ancestral property of the plaintiff which has been wrongly declared to be and registered to be a Public Trust under the Act. On the Temple declared to be property of a Public Trust, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 20 of the Act which was rejected. He therefore filed a suit under Section 22 of the Act for cancellation of an entry regarding registration of the Public Trust as well as the suit property being shown as property of the Public Trust. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that a person who is challenging the existence of the Trust and who is setting up a title adverse to the Public Trust cannot maintain a suit under Section 22 of the Act for cancellation of entries in the Register of Public Trust. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue on the point and decided it against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed revision petition against that order.

(2.) The trial Court has mainly relied on the decision of this Court in Mehta Charitable Trust v. Gulam Rasool, 1986 Raj LR 695 and decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Karim Khan v. Municipal Committee, Raipur, AIR 1965 SC 1744. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Karim Khan Supra, on which Mehta Charitable Trust's Case Supra was based, was in a case to which Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act applied. The learned counsel submitted that in Madhya Pradesh Act "person having interest" has not been defined, whereas in the Rajasthan Act it has been defined under Section 2(9), which will make a difference and the ruling would not be applicable to cases under Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that the definition of the expression "person having interest" would not make any difference to the situation as even the definition given under Section 2(9) does not include a person having interest adverse to the interest of the Public Trust.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy correctly, I will have to examine the scheme of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 as well as the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951. Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act falls in Chapter 5 which relates to registration of Public Trust.