MAHANTH RAMSAROOP DAS Vs. RAMESHWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Opposite party 1 made an application to the District Judge of Monghyr, under Section 3, Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, alleging that he was the lawful successor of the last mahanth of the Salouna asthal and that the present, petitioner was not the lawful mahanth of the asthal, although he claimed to be suck and was in possession of the properties of the asthal. After the arguments had been heard on this petition, opposite party 2 made an application to the District Judge, under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil P.C., alleging that he was a regular worshipper at the asthal and praying to be added as a party to the application of opposite party 1.

(2.) Both these applications have been granted by the learned District Judge. The petitioner before us challenges the validity of the order that has been passed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It is contended that the Act applies only to public trusts: that there is no evidence that the properties are the properties of a public trust; that the application under Section 3 is maintainable only by a person having an interest in the trust; that neither of the opposite parties has such an interest; and that the application is maintainable only against an admitted trustee and not against a person whose status as a trustee is challenged. It was open to the petitioner to ask for a stay of the application for accounts pending a decision of the nature of the trust in a regular suit.

(3.) Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act provides as follows: If any person appears at the hearing of the petition (i.e. the petition under Section 3) and either denies the existence of the trust or denies that it is a trust to which this Act applies, and undertakes to institute within three months a suit for a declaration to that effect and for any other appropriate relief, the Court shall order a stay of the proceedings and, if such suit is so instituted, shall continue the stay, until the suit is finally decided. Sub-section (4) is as follows: If no such undertaking is given, or if after the expiry of the three months no such suit has been instituted, the Court shall itself decide the question.