01Facts
The plaintiffs, residents and worshippers of Dharamkot, brought a suit under Section 92 CPC seeking the appellant’s removal as manager of Thakar Dwara Nauhrian and appointment of another manager.
p. 2They alleged that the temple and its land were public religious trust property and that the appellant breached his duties by claiming as his own compensation awarded for land acquired from the temple property.
p. 2The appellant claimed ownership through his predecessors and denied that the temple was a public trust.
pp. 3–4The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court dismissed the appellant’s appeal.
pp. 5–10In this second appeal, the High Court considered the concurrent findings that the property belonged to the temple and that the appellant was its manager, not its owner.
pp. 5–1002Issues
i.1. Whether a suit under Section 92 CPC was maintainable to remove the appellant as manager, given the dispute over the existence of a public religious trust and the plaintiffs’ standing.
pp. 7–9, 11–16ii.2. Whether the appellant had established ownership by adverse possession, or whether the concurrent finding that the property belonged to Thakar Dwara should be disturbed in second appeal.
pp. 5–10iii.3. Whether the suit was defective for non-joinder of the temple’s idol.
p. 703Law Applied
Section 92 CPC permits persons having an interest in a public trust created for charitable or religious purposes to seek specified reliefs, including removal of a trustee or manager, where there is a breach of trust or the court’s direction is necessary for proper administration.
pp. 9–10, 16Relying on Ashok Kumar Gupta v. M/s Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust, 2020 AIR (SC) 1257, the Court identified three requirements: a public charitable or religious trust; a breach of trust or need for the court’s direction; and a claim for one of the reliefs listed in Section 92 CPC.
p. 9A claim of adverse possession requires proof of when possession became open and hostile to the true owner; permissive possession as manager does not, by itself, become adverse.
pp. 6–7In a regular second appeal, concurrent factual findings supported by evidence do not warrant interference absent an error of law; the Court found no question of law arising here.
p. 10Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 92
04Reasoning
The Court found the trust’s public religious character supported by the appellant’s earlier pleadings and testimony acknowledging that the temple owned the property and that he served only as its pujari or manager, as well as by the revenue records.
pp. 4–6, 8–9The appellant’s claim to the acquisition compensation as his own was inconsistent with that role and constituted a breach of trust; the plaintiffs, as local worshippers with an interest in the temple, could seek relief under Section 92 CPC.
pp. 9–10, 16The adverse-possession claim also failed because the appellant remained in permissive possession as manager and did not prove an open, hostile claim against the temple.
pp. 6–7The Court accordingly found no basis to disturb the concurrent findings or to treat the suit as legally defective.
pp. 10, 15–1605Holding
The High Court held that the Section 92 CPC suit was maintainable, the temple property belonged to Thakar Dwara, and the appellant had not acquired title by adverse possession.
p. 10Finding no question of law warranting interference, it dismissed the second appeal and disposed of any pending applications.
pp. 10–11It also directed the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, to manage the trust’s affairs by appointing a committee.
p. 11Original Court PDF
Darshan LalvsOm Parkash
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
