[2025:RJ-JP:44838] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 211/2011 Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das Chela Mahant Ram Das Ji, Mandir Shri Radhakrishan Ji Maharaj, village Khohri, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur ----Plaintiff-Appellant Versus 1. Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur 2. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur 3. Hari Kishan son of Shri Jeevan, resident of village Khohri, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 461/2011 1. Govind Singh son of Shri Brij Lal, resident of Village Kohari, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur 2. Kishan Lal son of Shri Bhoja, resident of Village Kohari, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur 3. Amarpal Singh son of Shri Radhey, resident of village Kohari, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur 4. Tej Singh son of Shri Raghuvar, resident of Village Kohari, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur ----Appellants (Aggrieved Persons) Versus 1. Mehant Kaushal Kishore Das, Chela Mehant Ramdas Ji, Mandir Shri Radha Krishan Ji Maharaj, Village Kohari, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur ----Plaintiff/respondent 2. Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 3. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Laxman Mandir, Bharatpur 4. Hari Kishan S/o Jeevan, resident of Village Kohari, Tehsil Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur ----Non-applicants/Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (2 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] For Appellant/ (Plaintiff/applicant) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal with Mr. Laxmikant Tailor, Mr. Anubhav Agarwal & Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta with Mr. Hemendra Goyal Mr. Aatish Jain with Mr. Nitish Kumar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 30/05/2025 1. These two first appeals were preferred against Common judgment dated 27.01.2011 in Civil Miscellaneous Case No.14/2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur in an application under Section 41(2) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act of 1959’). Civil First Appeal No. 211/2011 is filed by Plaintiff Appellant Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das Chela Mahant Ram Das Ji under Section 43 read with Section 69 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act and read with Section 96 of CPC as by impugned judgment, learned trial Court while appointing Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das as Chairman of the Trust has also appointed Tashidhar, Deeg as Guardian of the Trust, contrary to all legal norms. 2. Civil First Appeal No. 461/2011 is preferred by Govind Singh, Krishan Lal, Amarpal Singh and Tej Singh, as the aggrieved persons along with application for grant of leave to file an appeal under Section 96 of CPC. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22.07.2011 has allowed the application for leave, thus, First Appeal No.461/2011 is registered and admitted. [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (3 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] 3. Since both the matters pertain to a common question, therefore, we are deciding these appeals with common judgment. The material on record submitted by the counsels clearly indicate that both the parties are not satisfied with the final judgment passed by learned trial Court. 4. The facts related to the present case indicate that there is a temple known as Shri Radha Krishan Ji Maharaj and it belongs to Ramanand Sampraday Niyam Gaddi. A Trust is registered with Devsthan Department, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur, under the provision of the Act of 1959. The material on record also indicate that due to huge chunk of land attached with the temple trust, there is a dispute between the parties. 5. An application under Section 41(2) of the Act of 1959, is filed by Mehant Kaushal Kishore Das on the ground that the temple of Shri Radha Krishan Ji Maharaj, also known as temple Shri Lal Ji Maharaj was earlier managed by Mahant Ramdas ji and on 17.11.1992, Kaushal Kishore Das was adopted by him and a Will is executed in his favour. After death of Ramdas on 24.06.2000, Kaushal Kishore Das assumed charge as Chairman of the Trust but the defendants/respondents are causing hindrance and obstruction in managing the Trust. The non-applicant No.3 Hari Kishan has filed proforma No.8 before non-applicant No.2 and non-applicant No.2 has passed an order that till decision by the District Court, non-applicant No.3 and other trustee will continue. 6. After notice to opposite parties, and filing of reply, six issues were framed by the Court. A total four witnesses were examined by plaintiff Mehant Kaushal Kishore Das and fifty-eight documents [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (4 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] were exhibited whereas four witnesses were examined by the non- applicant No.3 and two documents were exhibited. 7. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the appellant-plaintiff on the ground that Mehant Kaushal Kishore Das is only suitable person to be appointed and declared as Chairman of the Trust. Issue Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 were formulated on basis of objections in the reply and these issues were decided against non-applicant. 8. The trial Court has allowed the application of plaintiff Mehant Kaushal Kishore Das but at the same time appointed Tehsildar, Deeg as guardian so that the activities of Trust are monitored by the Government. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mehant Kaushal Kishore Das submitted that the Trust was registered on 22.01.1985 and the document of Trust Deed along with registration are placed on record. She further submitted that the Trust was managed by the then Mahant Ramdas Ji Maharaj, who expired on 24.06.2000 and after his death, Form No.8 was submitted for appointment of Kaushal Kishore Das as Mahant. She also submitted that Hari Kishan has submitted Form No.8 on 18.09.2000 for appointment of Tej Singh as President and on 29.11.2000, the Assistant Commissioner directed both the parties to approach competent Court but till then allowed Tej Singh to be the President of the Trust. The appellant-plaintiff has challenged the order of Assistant Commissioner before the Commissioner, Devastan Department, and same was quashed and matter was remitted back and on 08.08.2002, the Assistant Commissioner has decided the case with direction to the parties to approach competent District Court for appointment. [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (5 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] 10. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the District Court has allowed application of appellant which clearly indicate that appellant is the only person who is eligible to be appointed as President of the Trust but at the same time appointed Tesildar to be guardian of the Trust and aggrieved from the appointment of Tehsildar as guardian, the instant appeal is filed. She also submitted that under the Public Trust Act, there is no provision of appointment of guardian and such an appointment is contrary to the provision of the Act of 1959. She also submitted that there is no provision of appointment of Tehsildar as guardian in the Trust deed and the District Court cannot travel beyond the Trust Deed. She also submitted that they have already filed balance-sheet to show that the Trust is managed in transparent and accountable manner. 11. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents (including aggrieved) and non-applicants, and submitted that Proforma 8 is filed by Kaushal Kishore Das and also by Hari Kishan to claim as President (Managing Trustee of the Trust). He further submitted that the Assistant Commissioner after examination has found that Tej Singh is a competent person to be appointed as President till the matter is decided by the competent court, but on an appeal same was remanded back and on 08.08.2002, the Assistant Commissioner has directed for appointment of new Managing Trustee by a competent Court. He further submitted that the main dispute pertains to 486 bighas of land which is under receivership and by the public auction, land is handed over to cultivation. [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (6 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] 12. Learned counsel for the appellants Govind Singh and others submitted that Tej Singh, Amar Pal and Kishan Lal were also a trustee as per trust deed. He also submitted that on 13.07.1992 Kaushal Kishore Das has submitted Form No.8 on the ground that Baba Ramdas who was in old age and also resigned from the post of President so he be declared as President. He further submitted that on 17.03.1993, the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, had rejected the Form No. 8 submitted by Kaushal Kishore Das and directed to continue the old Executive Committee till new President is elected. He further submitted that an appeal against order dated 17.03.1993 passed by Assistant Commissioner is filed before Devsthan Commissioner which was dismissed on 08.01.1997 and no application under Section 41 of the Act of 1959 was filed before the District Court for appointment of new Working Trustee. He further submitted that the application of Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das is allowed without considering the actual facts of the case and the order dated 27.01.2011 is contrary to the previous litigation already pursued between the parties. He also submitted that appointment of Mahant Ka Kaushal Kishore Das as President is illegal and contrary to the interest of the Trust. 13. He further placed lines upon the judgement in case of A.A. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors. : A. I. R. 2007 S. C. 3162 and submitted that it is duty of the Trustees, Devotees and even Government and also of the Courts to protect the Temple property from misappropriation. He also placed reliance upon judgement dated 20.04.2024 passed in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11499/2022 (Partap Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) and submitted that the State Government [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (7 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] is the best authority to protect the rights of the Temple under the Act of 1959. The exercise of protection is required in the instant matter. 14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the material placed on record. Also, judgements as referred by learned cousnel for the Respondents/Appellants. 15. The facts of the case clearly indicate that applicant-Plaintiff Mahant Kishore Das has filed an application under Section 41(2) of the Act of 1959 before learned District Judge, Bharatpur and same was transferred to learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur for disposal. Learrned Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, has decided Issue No. 1 in favour of applicant- Plaintiff Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das and found that Issue No. 1 is proved in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court has decided Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 altogether, but all these were decided without any analysis or consideration of objection or the arguments advanced by the non-applicant (defendant) or respondent. Not a single reason is assigned on record to show that why Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 were decided against non-applicant (defendant). 16. Similarly, while considering the relief clause, the trial court has observed that there is a post of guardian and the trial court has appointed Tahsildar, Deeg as the guardian, but Tahsildar, Deeg is neither a party nor the consent of Tahsildar, Deeg has been procured before passing order dated 27.01.2011. Section 41(2) of the Act of 1959 does not authorize the district Court to appoint Tahsildar, a Government official, as the guardian of any trust. 17. The aforementioned reasons are sufficient to show that the trial Court has not considered the objections raised by non- [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (8 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] applicant and moreover, without any authority, has appointed Tahsildar, Deeg as the guardian of the Trust. 18. The trust deed is also placed on record and it indicates that besides Mahant Ram Dasji Maharaj, eight other trustees were initially appointed. The trust deed submitted by the appellant Mahant Kishore Das indicates that two more names, Swami Kaushal Kishore Das and Sardar Rajender Singh were added. This trust deed indicates that Ganga Sahay, Laxminarain, Amar Pal, Damodar, Bhole, Kishan Lal, Tej Singh and Devi Ram were original trustee besides Mahant Ramdas Ji Maharaj. 19. The trust deed provides for appointment of Managing Committee having nine members, which can have up to maximum eleven members, but it provides for office bearer such as Guardian, President, Secretary, and Treasurer. The trust deed provides for termination of membership and also appointment as trustee. The meeting of Trust is called by the Secretary under the instruction of the President. The minimum quorum is 1/3rd, but the support of 2/3rd Members is required, which means there has to be absolute majority. The trust deed indicates that total 486 Bighas and 14 Biswa land is in the name of Trust. 20. As regard to appointment of guardian is concerned, the provision clearly indicate that Mahant Ramdas Ji Maharaj will be lifetime guardian of the Trust. The President was designated as Managing Trustee and this right was exercised by Mahant Ramdas Ji himself till his lifetime. But it has been provided that whosoever is Mahant shall be President of the Trust. All other office bearers are appointed as per trust deed. The trust deed clearly indicate that this trust deed is, in fact, law to manage the Trust. [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (9 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] 21. Since there is a dispute about appointment of Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das as Managing Trustee and Assistant Commissioner of Devastan Department has directed the parties to get it declared by the District Court. Therefore, Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das has approached the District Court under section 41(2) of the Act of 1959. 22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant- Plaintiff, has also relied upon Order dated 21.06.2001 in Revision/TA/8/99/Bharatpur passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, whereby the Kaushal Kishore Das, who has having Wasiyat and Ghodnama, was allowed to represent the temple as next best friend. This Order also indicates that the Trust appointed by the SDO can no longer represent the temple. 23. In case of A.A. Gopalakrishnan Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors., Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered and observed as under:- “10. The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their Trustees/Archaks/ Sebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of 'fences eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.” [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (10 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] 24. In case of Partap Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), again considering the provision of Act of 1959, a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur has observed that State Government is the best authority to protect the rights of the temple and the Commissioner of Devastan Department, being Treasurer is empowered to exercise control over the temple. Though this Order is passed in a PIL. 25. Having considering the entire material available on the record, in particular, the Trust deed and particular revenue litigation, I am of the considered view that in Civil First Appeal No.461/2011, when an application for leave was allowed, a Co- ordinate Bench has observed that the application for leave has been filed not for personal gain of applicants but for welfare and property of the Trust. 26. The reasons assigned by Govind Singh and others were sufficient to convenience the Court to grant leave to entertain the appeal. The Trust deed also indicate that Kishan Lal, Amar Pal and Tej Singh were original trustees when the Trust was registered on 22.01.1985. There was no existence of Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das on date of registration of Trust, therefore, pursuing an application without impleading them as a party, is not a proper act on part of appelant Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das. 27. Having considering the fact that the issue pertains to a temple having huge land bank with lots of revenue litigation, I am of considered view that the matter requires consideration after affording an opportunity to appellants (applicants) in SB CFA No.461/2011. Similarly, there is no provision of appointment of Teshildar as a guardian but the Court has to ensure protection of [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (11 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] the temple property from misappropriation, therefore, it is appropriate to set aside the order which was passed without following the principle of law, as it has not decided the issue Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 on merits and just on basis of issue No.1 has passed an order of appointment of Managing trustee. Similarly, the facts also indicate that earlier there was an attempt by Mahant Kaushal Kishore Das for appointing him as President of the Trust which was turned down by the Devstan Department. Thus, the case may be of concealing the material fact, therefore, after setting aside the order, it is appropriate to remit back the matter to the learned District Judge, Bharatpur for fresh consideration of matter. 28. In view of discussion made hereinabove, S.B. Civil First Appeal No.211/2011 is partially and S.B. Civil First Appeal No.461/2011 are hereby allowed and the impugned judgement dated 27.01.2011 in Civil Misc. Case No.14/2008 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur, is set aside and the matter is remitted back with following directions:- (i) Learned District Judge shall withdraw the case from learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur, to the Court of District Judge and proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants Govind Singh, Kishan Lal, Amarpal Singh and Tej Singh shall be impleaded as non- applicants (defendants) and an opportunity to file reply and to defend be granted to them in accordance with law. [2025:RJ-JP:44838] (12 of 12) [CFA-211/2011] (iii) The matter be decided expeditiously as early as possible. 29. Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/94-95