Darshan Lal vs Om Parkash

-1-
103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-240-1995
Reserved on : 12.08.2026
Pronounced on : 05.11.2026
DARSHAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR
...Appellant
Versus
OM PARKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS

...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Manvir Singh Kamboj, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Dhivya Jerath, Advocate
for the respondents.
PARMOD GOYAL, J.
Present regular second appeal has been filed by appellant-
defendant being aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 13.03.1992 passed
st
by the then learned Sub Judge, 1 Class, Zira whereby suit preferred by
respondents-plaintiffs under Section 92 of CPC for the removal of appellant-
defendant as manager/shebait of the temple known as Thakar Dwara
Nauhrian at Dharamkot and for appointment of another manager was
decreed and also by judgment and decree dated 09.11.1994 passed by the
then learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby first appeal
preferred by appellant-defendant was dismissed.
2. Respondents-plaintiffs who had claimed themselves to be
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -2-
residents of Dharamkot where Temple known as Thakar Dwara Nauhrian is
situated, claimed that Thakar Dwara is comprised of temple building and
Shiwala as per the site plan. A part of the temple building is used for
residence of Manager of Thakar Dwara. It is asserted that idols of Lord Ram,
Sita and Hanumanji, and Shiv-ling are being worshiped by all the residents
in area known as Thakar Dwara. It was claimed that Thakar Dwara was
established more than 125 years ago and persons of the Nauhrian community
of Dharamkot made a substantial contribution in the establishment and
maintenance of the said temple. The manager of said Thakar Dwara was also
appointed with consent of the Nauhrian worshipers of the said Thakar
Dwara. It was claimed that respondents-plaintiffs are directly interested in
proper maintenance of Thakar Dwara and properties attached to it. It was
claimed that appellant-defendant was appointed manager in 1969 with the
consent of the Nauhrian residents of Dharamkot and since then appellant-
defendant has been acting as manager of Thakar Dwara and residing with his
family in adjoining building, which is the part of temple complex. That out
of 85 kanal 05 marlas owned by Thakar Dwara, 12 kanals were acquired by
Punjab State for making by-pass to Dharamkot town vide notification dated
26.12.1986 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and amount
of Rs.1,52,000/- was awarded as compensation vide award dated 16.10.1989
passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The compensation amount was
the corpus of Thakar Dwara, however, appellant-defendant started claiming
the same as his own property and wanted to use it for his own purposes and
he started claiming himself to be owner of suit land. It was therefore,
claimed that since appellant-defendant who was manager, by claiming
himself to be owner had committed breach of trust and therefore, his interest
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -3-
has become hostile to the interest of Thakar Dwara and accordingly, he is
required to be removed from the position of Manager. Accordingly, removal
of appellant-defendant from the office of manger was sought.
3. Appellant-defendant vide its detailed written statement, took
number of preliminary objections regarding maintainability of suit. On
merits, it was asserted that Thakar Dwara known as Thakar Dwara Nauhrian,
is property of appellant-defendant and it consists of a mandir, house and in
mandir idols of Lord Ram, Sita and Hanumanji and Shiv-ling are enshrined.
He claimed that earlier his father and his grandfather were in continuous
possession of Thakar Dwara temple and land in name of Thakar Dwara for
more than 140/150 years. That Thakar Dwara was constructed by one Bawa
Kishan Dass, then by Arhar Dass and thereafter, Thakar Dass remained in
possession of predecessors of respondents-plaintiffs. That Thakar Dwara had
filed a suit for possession of Thakar Dwara against one Ganesha Mal on
06.02.1862 and suit No.29 of 1862 was decreed on 30.04.1862 and since
then appellant-defendant and his predecessors are in possession of suit
property as owners. He denied that Thakar Dwara is a public Trust and
accordingly, claimed that he being owner of suit property is entitled to
receive compensation on acquisition of land being owner of suit property.
Dismissal of suit was accordingly, prayed for.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:-
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as
per preliminary objection No.4 of the written statement? OPD
3. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -4-
4. Whether the defendant has become owner of the property in
dispute by adverse possession?OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present
suit? OPD.
6. Whether Thakar Dwara Nauria, Dharmkot was the owner of the
property in dispute which was acquired by the Punjab State and
as such as entitled to the possession of the same? OPD.
7. Relief.
5. While deciding issue No.4, learned Courts below, after
appreciation of pleadings as well as evidence led by parties, had concluded
suit property to be owned by Thakar Dwara, Nauhrian and had held that suit
property is not the individual property of appellant-defendant-Darshan Lal as
was claimed by him. Learned Courts below had duly taken in consideration
admissions made by appellant-defendant who while appearing as DW-2 had
duly admitted that in a previous suit preferred by his brothers against him for
claiming right over the suit property titled as Kishori Lal etc. Vs. Darshan
Lal and another, appellant-defendant had duly filed written statement
(Ex.P-2) and had appeared as DW-1. Learned Courts below had also taken
into consideration copy of plaint filed by Kishori Lal, placed on record as
Ex.P-1 as well as written statement filed by appellant-defendant (placed on
record as Ex.P-2). In Ex.P-2, appellant-defendant had clearly admitted that
suit property is a Trust property owned by Thakar Dwara and he is merely a
trustee, being Pujari, and had denied any right on the basis of inheritance. He
claimed that earlier Nathu Ram was appointed as Pujari of the temple by the
members of Nauhrian family of Dharamkot, who were the founders of
temple and had gifted the land to the temple. Not only the appellant-
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -5-
defendant had filed his written statement but had also appeared as DW1 in
support of his case in said suit titled as Kishor Lal etc. Vs. Darshan and
another , wherein he again reiterated his claim that suit property is owned by
Thakar Dwara and his status is only that of Pujari/Manager. The admission
made by appellant-defendant in previous suit preferred against him in which
respondents-plaintiffs were not the parties has been taken into consideration.
It has been rightly taken to be binding upon appellant-defendant.
6. Learned Courts below had also taken in consideration revenue
records i.e. jamabandi as well as khasra girdawari, which show that suit
property was owned by Thakar Dwara and managed through its Manager.
Ex.D-4 copy of mutation No.15893, sanctioned in year 1969, was duly taken
in consideration, which goes to show the ownership of Thakar Dwara
through its Manager-Ram Parkash. Even jamabandi, for the year 1973-74
(Ex.D-10), the land was shown to be under the ownership of Thakar Dwara
Nauhrian through Manager. Jamabandi for the year 1982-83 (Ex.P-3), also
shows that suit property was owned by Thakar Dwara, managed through its
Manager-appellant-defendant-Darshan Lal.
7. Learned Courts below have duly considered claim of appellant-
defendant on the basis of judgment dated 30.04.1862 (Ex.D-7), whereby it
had concluded that vide said judgment, 12 Ghuman land was given to
Thakar Dwara Nauhrian. Accordingly, both the learned Courts had found
suit property to be religious property and a public Trust. Both the learned
Courts had concluded that from the admission of appellant-defendant it is
clearly made out that property is a temple and being used as religious place.
It had concluded that suit property is a public Trust property and status of
appellant-defendant was merely that of a Pujari.
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -6-
8. The findings of learned Courts below on issue No.4 and there
conclusion that suit property is religious property constituting public Trust,
therefore, is based upon correct appreciation of evidence led by parties
before the learned Courts below. Appellant-defendant cannot blow hot and
cold as per his convenience. The admission made by him while appearing as
DW-1 in suit titled as Kishori Lal etc. Vs. Darshan Lal and another , as
well as admission made in written statement (Ex.P-2) of said case are
binding on appellant-defendant. It is worth noticing that even while
appearing as DW-2, in his cross-examination, appellant-defendant had duly
admitted that earlier he had claimed that suit property is owned by Thakar
Dwara and he was merely a Manager, though initially he tried to deny the
contents of written statement.
9. Learned Courts below had also rightly rejected the claim of
adverse possession over the suit property, as appellant-defendant himself
continues to be Pujari of the Thakar Dwara and has never given up said post
to claim suit property to be his own property. It was only on receipt of
compensation he started claiming suit property to be his property upon
which suit was duly filed by respondents-plaintiffs.
10. In order to prove adverse possession, it is necessary to prove as
to when person claiming adverse possession has come in open and hostile
possession against the rights of true owner. In the present case, this fact was
neither pleaded nor proved. Moreover claim of adverse possession is
admission of ownership of true owner. Mere possession of suit property, if it
was permissible, would not automatically become adverse unless it is shown
that open and hostile claim of ownership and possession is made by person
claiming adverse possession. Appellant-defendant always continued in
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -7-
permissive possession being Manager of Thakar Dwara, and therefore, he
cannot claim adverse possession of property owned by Thakar Dwara.
Finding of learned Courts below that suit property is a religious property,
owned by Thakar Dwara, therefore cannot be faulted with, as same is based
upon correct appreciation of evidence. The finding of learned Courts below
is accordingly, affirmed. It was held that suit property is owned by Thakar
Dwara which was being looked after by appellant-defendant-Darshan Lal,
being a Pujari. He was neither owner of suit property nor could have claimed
the same.
11. Faced with above concurrent findings of fact, which has been
found to be correct by this Court also, learned counsel for the appellant-
defendant has argued that present suit is not maintainable under Section 92
of CPC, 1908. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has challenged
maintainability of suit on the following grounds:
•
That suit is not filed by Trust or against the Trust and there is
no existence of Trust.
•
That no averment whether Trust is a private Trust and Trust
Deed has not been placed on record.
•
That respondent-plaintiffs have failed to prove existence of
Nauhrian Committee and management/control over the
Thakar Dwara.
12. It was argued that since there was no existence of Trust,
therefore, suit was not maintainable. It was further argued that since idol of
Thakar Dwara was not impleaded, therefore, suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties. That learned Courts below have failed to take in
consideration revenue records, which show succession of suit property in
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -8-
favour of ancestors of appellant-defendant. Therefore, the suit ought to have
been dismissed by learned Courts below. Reliance has been placed upon
following judgments:-
•
Ashok Kumar Gupta and another Vs. M/s Sitalaxmi
Sahuwala Medical Trust and others , 2020 AIR (SC) 1257.
•
A. Anjaiah and another Vs. Smt. Padmavathamma and 12
others , 2026 Law Finder (Telangana) 79.
•
R. M. Narayana Chettiar and another. Vs. N.
Lakshmanan Chettiar and others, 1991(1) SCC 48.
•
Narinder Kumar Vs. Rakesh Kumar Chopra and others
& Shiv Kumar and others Vs. Rakesh Kumar Chopra and
others, 2012(5) RCR(Civil) 38
•
Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami and another, 2011(4)
RCR(Civil) 251.
13. As noted above, all the revenue entries available on record,
including revenue entries wherein predecessor-in-interest of appellant-
defendant were mutated, in fact goes to show that suit property was owned
by none but Thakar Dwara Nauhrian. The name of predecessor-in-interest as
well as of appellant-defendant had figured in revenue records, being
Manager of Thakar Dwara. Therefore, learned Courts below had rightly held
that suit property was not individual property of appellant-defendant but was
a religious property, which was created and being run as a public Trust
through its Manager. The issue of ownership over the suit property and
existence of public Trust is a fact which Courts have to record on the basis
of facts and circumstances and evidence before it in each case. On
appreciation of facts and evidence in present case, it has been rightly held
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -9-
that suit property was created and existed as a public Trust and is of
religious nature.
14. The principles laid down in judgment cited by learned counsel
for the appellant-defendant are not in dispute. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Ashok Kumar and others Vs. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust and
others (supra) laid down following three conditions which are required to be
satisfied to invoke Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
•
The trust in question is created for public purposes of a
charitable or religious nature.
•
There is a breach of trust or direction of Court is necessary in
the administration of such a trust.
•
The relief claimed is one or other of the reliefs as enumerated
in said Section.
15. On consideration of present case, all the three conditions so laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Sitalaxmi
Sahuwala Medical Trust and others, (supra), are clearly made out. It has
been duly noticed by learned Courts below that suit property is a religious
property which was created and managed through public donations. These
findings of learned Courts below are based upon admission of none but
appellant-defendant, but also on the basis of revenue records and other
evidence led by the parties. Therefore, the first condition that the suit
property has to be public Trust of religious nature and was created for public
purposes is duly made out. Similarly, the breach of trust is clearly made out
when Manager of the property, who is entrusted to safeguard the Trust
property, starts claiming the Trust property as his own. The claim made by
appellant-defendant that he is owner of property named as Thakar Dwara,
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -10-
which has been found to be a public property of religious nature, is a clear
breach of trust on the part of appellant-defendant, and prayer for removal of
appellant-defendant as Manager of the Trust is one of the reliefs which has
been enumerated in Section 92(1) of CPC, 1908. Therefore, all the
conditions in present case have been duly made out. Similarly, in other
judgments also, existence of Trust and issue regarding existence of issues
relating to Trust property have been held to be necessary to invoke
jurisdiction of Court, which in the present case as noted above have been
duly made out and shown by the respondents-plaintiffs.
16. In a case of Trust property, it is not necessary that relief is to be
sought by trustees alone. Under Section 92 CPC, any two or more persons
having interest can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. The remedy under
Section 92 of CPC is available for breach of any express and constructive
Trust created for public purpose of charitable or religious nature. In the
present case, respondents-plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that they are
locals who are members of Nauhrian Committee, being worshippers at
Thakar Dwara, had interest in affairs of Trust, and they had also succeeded
in proving that appellant-defendant, who was mere Manager of Trust, by
claiming Trust property to be his own individual property, has breached the
trust as well as acted against interests of Trust namely Thakar Dwara
Nauhrian. In the present case, therefore, the conclusion drawn by learned
Courts below cannot be held to be incorrect, perverse or erroneous, same is
based upon evidence and as per law. No question of law arises in present
case for consideration in second appeal. Finding no merit in present appeal,
appeal is dismissed.
17. Since, Trust in the name of Thakar Dwara is a constructive
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-240-1995 -11-
Trust of religious nature. Without there being any Trust Deed, therefore, it is
necessary to direct Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur to manage the affairs
of the Trust by appointing Committee to manage affairs of Thakar Dwara
Nauhrian.
18. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
05.11.2026 JUDGE
Ravinder
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.11.05 16:44
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document