1. Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Trust vs Balakrishna Bhat (D) Thr. Lrs.

(2019 INSC 0786)

Property Law- Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961- Whether the entry in the respondents’
predecessors’ names in the Record of Rights was illegal- Yes

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Allowed

The Respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) claim that one late Baba Bommayya Bhat was the archak of
the appellant Ganapathi Dev temple and he was in actual possession and enjoyment of
agricultural land to the extent of 4 guntas) (hereinafter ‘suit property’) situated in the village
of Avarsa, which he had been cultivating since 1969; that after the death of the said Baba
Bommayya Bhat, his son, the late Balakrishna Bhat (husband of Respondent No. 1(a) and
father of the Respondents No. 1(b) to 1(e) herein) continued in possession of the suit property
and consequently the name of Balakrishna Bhat was entered into the revenue records.

Further that the deceased Balakrishna Bhat, after obtaining necessary permission from the
Panchayat, constructed a house in the suit property in 1994 and obtained an electricity
connection for the said house; and that after his demise, Respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) are
residing in the same house. Respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) therefore claimed to be the deemed
tenants of the suit property under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’).
Section 48A of the 1961 Act enables any person entitled to be registered as an occupant of
land under Section 45 to make an application to the Land Tribunal praying for such
registration. Respondent No 1(b), Vitthaldas Bhat, filed a Form7 application under Section
48A in 1979 for grant of occupancy rights in respect of the suit property in his favour.
However, during course of enquiry before the Land Tribunal, Respondent No 1(b) himself
deposed that he was not cultivating the property and the Form 7 application was made by him
on a wrong notion. He stated that the suit property is to remain in the name of the appellant
temple and pleaded for dismissal of his application. Hence the Land Tribunal by order dated
28.01.1981 rejected the said Form 7 application filed under Section 48A of the 1961 Act.
Thus, it is clear that as of 28.01.1981, and prior thereto, Respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) were not
cultivators of the property, and therefore could not be deemed tenants under Section 4 of the
1961 Act.

By Amending Act No. 23 of 1998, Section 77A was inserted in the 1961 Act which gave one
more chance to a person who failed to apply for registration of their occupancy rights
under Section 48A within the period specified therein, to apply to the Deputy Commissioner
for such registration. Rule 26C of the 1974 Rules prescribes that the format of the application
to the Deputy Commissioner would be per Form 7A of the Rules.

In view of rejection of his son’s Form 7 application under Section 48A, the deceased
Balakrishna Bhat was not entitled to apply for grant of occupancy rights under Section
77A of the amended 1961 Act. He nonetheless filed a Form 7A application under Section
77A. The Assistant Commissioner, Kumta by order dated 15.03.2000 rightly rejected the
application of the deceased Balakrishna Bhat on the ground that it was not possible to confer
occupancy rights or grant in view of the earlier Land Tribunal order dated 28.01.1981.

Prior to the aforementioned proceedings, the Government’s name was entered into the
revenue records of the suit property based on the presumption that the deceased Balakrishna
Bhat was the tenant of the suit property, and hence the property was vested with the State
Government under Section 44 of the 1961 Act. In his order dated 15.03.2000, the Assistant
Commissioner specifically observed that the suit property does not come under the purview
of the 1961 Act and directed for the removal of the Government’s name in the revenue entry
of the suit property. This was not challenged by the respondents herein. However, this
direction was inexplicably not effected. Hence, the appellant herein filed an application
before the Tehsildar to delete the name of the State Government and Balakrishna Bhat in the
revenue records of the suit property.

This application was allowed after enquiry by order dated 21.05.2003, and the appellant’s
name was entered in the Record of Rights vide. The Tehsildar’s order dated 21.05.2003
entering the appellant’s name, based on the previous orders of the competent authorities, was
confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner by orders dated
30.07.2005 and 23.03.2006 respectively.

Respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) challenged all the aforementioned orders dated 21.05.2003,
30.07.2005 and 23.03.2006 respectively before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition,
which also came to be dismissed.

The Division Bench of the High Court, in the impugned judgment, granted relief in favour of
the respondents on the ground that they had constructed a house on the suit property and had
been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and that the entry made in their
favour in the Record of Rights shall be presumed to be true under Section 133 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘1964 Act’).

After appeal the Supreme Court held that the entry in the respondents’ predecessors’ names
in the Record of Rights was illegal and the revenue records in respect of the suit property
were correctly modified in the appellant’s name by the orders of the revenue authorities dated
21.05.2003, 30.07.2005 and 23.03.2006.

2. Janardan Dagdu Khomane vs Eknath Bhiku Yadav (2019 INSC 0801)

Property Law- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948- Whether the High Court
was justified in quashing the Exemption Certificate in favour of the Trust, notwithstanding
the fact that the suit property belonged to an institution of public religious worship?-Justified

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Dismissed

The appellants are the trustees of Shree Maruti Deo Trust Pimpli Limtek, registered as a
public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the “Public
Trusts Act”. It is the case of the appellants that, since time immemorial, the said land has
belonged to the Maruti Dev Temple. The said land is classified in the revenue records as
Class III Devasthan Inam land belonging to the deity Maruti Dev. The suit property,
according to the appellants, belongs to an institution of public religious worship. According
to the appellants, initially in 1922, one Sitram Narayan Deshpande was put in possession of
the suit land in view of the service rendered by him to the temple. Later, the land was let out
to the forefathers of respondent nos. 1 to 4. The respondent nos. 1 to 4, claim to be the tenants
of the respondent nos. 5 and 6. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 claim to have been in possession of
the said land on 1.4.1957 i.e. the “Tillers Day” under the 1948 Act, now known as the
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It is the case of the appellants, that Section
88B, inserted by amendment in the 1948 Act by Bombay Act No.38 of 1957, exempts land
which is the property of a trust for, inter alia, educational purposes or an institution for public
religious worship, from certain provisions of the 1948 Act including Section 32 and sub
Sections 32A to 32 R of the said Act, provided that such trust is or is deemed to be registered
under the Public Trusts Act, and the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the
purposes of such Trust.

The Additional Collector, after holding enquiry under Section 88B (2) of the 1948 Act, issued
a certificate dated 21.1.1987, certifying that the Trust is “an institution of public religious
worship registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act”. The certificate further certified that
the Trust was eligible for exemption under Section 88B of the 1948 Act in respect of the land
in question.

The High Court held that it was not open to the Collector to grant a certificate of Exemption
to the Trust as the land had vested in the writ petitioners on 1.04.1957. The High Court also
held that as the Trust was not registered on 1.04.1957, i.e., Tillers’ Day the tenants who were
in possession of the said land on that day became deemed purchasers, and once the tenant
became a deemed purchaser, the ownership of the land vested in him. The holders could not
be divested of their ownership by subsequent registration of the Trust.

In the appeal to the Supreme Court the main issue was that whether High Court was justified
in quashing the Exemption Certificate issued by the Collector. The Supreme Court affirmed
the judgement passed by the High Court.

3. State Of M.P. . vs Murti Shri Chaturbhujnath (2019 INSC 0911)

Property Law- Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959- Whether the correction made in
the revenue records and on basis of which the Temple was claimed to be a public temple and
the Collector as the Manager was sustainable- Unsustainable

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Dismissed

Facts

 Respondent no.1 was a public Temple. The revenue records were therefore rightly corrected
by recording the name of the collector as ‘Vyawasthapak’ (Manager) which was done for
better management of the temple properties. Respondent nos.2 and 3 were only
“Pujaris”. The appellant claimed that they had no right to claim ownership of the Temple
lands, much less have their names entered in the revenue records, seeking restraint against
interference. The Temple being situated on government land belonging to the Aukaf
Department was a “Devsthani Muafi”. The Pujaris had no “Bhumiswami Rights” in the lands.

The respondents contended that the Pujaris never claimed any ownership rights in themselves
to the lands. The lands belonged to the Deity gifted by Syed Mohammed Ali, Manager of the
landlord Hakim. The Deity was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands since very
long. Puja was being done by the Pujaris on basis of the income of the Temple. The unilateral
correction in the land revenue entries as late as 197980, by recording the collector as
‘Manager’ was in complete violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 115 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”) 

The First Appellate Court and the High Court held that the procedure not having been
followed, the correction made in the revenue records and on basis of which the Temple was
claimed to be a public temple and the Collector as the Manager thereof was
unsustainable. The same was held by the Supreme Court and the appeal was dismissed.

4. Mrinalini Padhi vs Union Of India (2019 INSC 0912)

Property Law- Puri Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952, Shri Jagannath
Temple Act, 1954- Prayer for inquiry of disappearance of the keys to the Ratna Bhandar of
the Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri and prayers for management of temple has been made-
Prayer Allowed

Practice and Procedure- Petition filed under Article 32- Allowed

A petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to direct an

investigation/enquiry into the disappearance of the keys to the Ratna Bhandar of the Shri
Jagannath Temple, Puri. It has also been prayed that an inventory of the valuables stored at
the Ratna Bhandar of Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri be taken and to direct appointment of an
expert committee to submit a report to this Court for preservation and management of
property and valuables of Shri Jagannath Temple.

While entertaining the petition, this Court passed an order on 8.6.2018, directing District
Judge, Puri a submit a report. In this case the Supreme Court appointed Shri Ranjit Kumar,
learned Senior Counsel as Amicus Curiae and Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned Senior Counsel
was requested to assist him in the matter. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted interim
reports pursuant to the orders which have been passed by this Court from time to time. The
reports of the Amicus Curiae contained various suggestions for improvement in the
management of the temple.

The Temple Managing Committee has filed its response as to the suggestions made by
learned Amicus Curiae. It has been pointed that the Temple Administration is neither averse
to the implementation of the recommendations/suggestions of learned Amicus Curiae on the
issue after holding discussions with all the stakeholders. It is further submitted that Temple
Administration is open to carry out improvements in the Temple as may be directed by this
Court in the larger interest of the public.

The Supreme Court also held that as regards suggestions for amendments to Shri Jagannath
Temple Act, 1955, a draft amendment is under preparation which will be placed before the
Temple Managing Committee and State Govt. for necessary orders.

5. Bansidhar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (2019 INSC 0917)

Civil Law- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Whether the plaintiff were entitled to manage and
claim the possession of the temple founded by their ancestors-No

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Dismissed

The seminal facts relevant for the purpose are that late Shri Bansidhar Sharma (predecessor
of the appellant) filed a suit on 15th July, 1961 for possession, rendition of accounts and
permanent injunction before the Additional District and Session Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City in
which following issues were framed:

1. Whether the suit temples were founded by the plaintiffs’ ancestors and his ancestors were
Shebeit and Mahant of the temples entitled to manage the same?

2. Whether the plaintiff is the descendant of Pandit Mahadev Ji and entitled to claim the
possession of the temple and shops and the account of the income thereof for the period since
1925 from the defendants?

After the matter being heard, trial Court vide its judgment dated 26th November, 1977
holding that there was no substance in the suit dismissed it with costs.

An appeal against the judgement of the trial court was filed in the High Court. During
pendency of the appeal, the High Court of Rajasthan passed an ad interim order on 11th
January, 1978: “Issue notice to the G.A. and the respondents. Meanwhile the appellant shall
not be dispossessed from the premises where he resides.

Subsequently the appeal was dismissed by the High Court in 2018 with a cost of Rupees One
Lakh and the plaintiff was directed to hand over the possession of the disputed property to the
respondents within a period of two months.
This judgment was further challenged in SLP before the Supreme Court and that came to be
dismissed. After dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court, the respondents sent an
intimation to the plaintiff to hand over the possession in compliance of the order of the Single
Judge of the High Court in 2018, but when no action was taken by the appellant, interlocutory
application was filed under Section 151 read with Section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908(hereinafter being referred to as CPC) before the Single Judge of the High Court.

After hearing the parties, the Single Judge of the High Court noticing the rival contention of
the parties allowed the application vide its order dated 21st August, 2019, with a liberty to the
State to take possession of the suit property and to take police or other aid, if necessary, in
taking possession of the subject property. This order of the High Court was appealed in the
Supreme Court by the appellant. The appeal was dismissed and the Supreme Court upheld the
judgement of the High Court.

6. The Government Of Tamil Nadu and Anr. Vs. Arulmighu Kallalagar

Thirukoil and Ors. (2019 INSC 0921)

Property Law- Madras Forest Act, 1882- Declaration that the entire forest area in Alagar
Hills belongs to the Presiding Deity of the temple- Denied

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Allowed

H.H. Sri Sundara Ramanuja Periya Jeer Swamigal of Periya Jeer Swamigal Mutt, Tirupati
and five others (hereinafter referred to as “devotees”) filed a civil suit in the Court of
Subordinate Judge, Madurai for a declaration that the entire forest area in Alagar Hills
belongs to Sri Arulmighu Kallalagar also called Sri Sundarajasami or Sundara Bahu or
Paramasamy, the Presiding Deity of the Respondent-temple. A consequential relief of
possession of the said forest area was also sought. A civil suit was filed by Arulmigu
Kallalagar Thirukoil Alagar Koil (for short “the Respondent”) in the Court of Subordinate
Judge, Madurai for a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu (for short “the Appellant”)
to deliver possession of the schedule mentioned property i.e. Alagar hills. Relief of
permanent injunction restraining the Defendant i.e. the Appellant-herein and the Chief
Conservator of Forest Department from disturbing the underground water reserves by digging
wells or in any other manner was also sought.  The devotees contended that the provisions of
the Madras Forest Act, 1882 (for short “the Act”) were not complied with before declaring
Alagar Hills as a reserved forest.

The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the Respondent by holding that no evidence was
produced to show that the suit property belonged to the Respondent- temple. The contention
of the Government that the suit property was declared as a reserved forest in 1881 was
accepted by the trial Court. The Notification dated 11.10.1883 under Section 25 of the Act
was relied upon by the trial Court to hold that the Respondent-temple cannot claim any right
over the forest land on Alagar Hills. The suit filed by the devotees was also dismissed by the
trial Court on the similar ground.
The High Court heard the Appeals filed against the two judgments of the trial Court together
and disposed them off by a common judgment.  The High Court held that there was no order
passed by the Government declaring the Algarmalai as reserved forest prior to 01.01.1883 i.e.
the date on which the Act came into force, thus allowing the appeal.

The State of Tamil Nadu filed an appeal against the order of High Court in the SC. The
Supreme Court held that they do not agree that the respondent was in continuous possession
under an assertion of title as there is no evidence on record to reach such a conclusion. The
finding recorded by the High Court that there is adequate material to hold that Alagar hills
belong to the temple is erroneous.

7. W.N. Allal Sundaram vs Commissioner H.R. (2019 INSC 0981)

Property Law- Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department on

21 March 1990, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959-
Whether the original Deed of Settlement was in the nature of a "specific endowment" under
Section 6 (19)-Yes

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Dismissed

The Deputy Commissioner, HR and CE Administration Department issued a notice stating

that the Bagyammal Trust is a public trust. The appellant claimed that the plaint schedule
property had been settled in favour of Bagyammal by her predecessors under a Deed of
Settlement in pursuance of which she was in possession and enjoyment of the property
between 1928 and 1959. Bagyammal is alleged to have executed a Deed of Settlement in
favour of Raju Chettiar. On his death in 1954, it was alleged that his wife Jagathambal
succeeded to the property as his sole heir. Jagathambal is alleged to have settled the property
in favour of her son-in-law W S Natarajan Chettiar. He is stated to have taken over
possession of the property and to have been in control until his death in 1968. The appellant,
as his son, claims to have succeeded to the property. The case of the appellant is that the trust
which was created by Bagyammal is a private family and that the Bagyammal Trust is not a
“specific endowment” falling under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Act 1959.

A proceeding was instituted under Section 63(a) before the Deputy Commissioner, HR and

CE Administration Department seeking a declaration to that effect. On 3 October 1986, the
Deputy Commissioner dismissed the proceeding. On 21 March 1990, an appeal against the
order of the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed by the first respondent. This led to the
institution of a suit by the appellant under Section 70(1). On 27 October 1995, the Trial Judge
decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court reversed the judgment
of the Trial Court on 27 October 2006.

 A Special Leave Petition was instituted before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution in order to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The Supreme Court held that on 4 June 1926, a Deed of Settlement was executed under
which Bagyammal was entrusted with the construction of an additional choultry. The
choultry was to be specifically utilised for the purpose of extending facilities to pilgrims who
visited the Devasthanam. There was a restraint on the creation of an encumbrance either on
the choultry or on the land. The choultry was to be utilised at all times for the use of the
general public. No right could be claimed by Bagyammal on the choultry. The choultry was
to be maintained by Bagyammal, her descendants or her nominees. In view of the clear terms
emerging from the deed, the definition of the expression „specific endowment‟ in Section
6(19) is attracted. The purpose of the Act of 1959 is to consolidate the law relating to the
administration and governance of Hindu religious and charitable institutions and endowments
in the State of Tamil Nadu. The property was endowed specifically for the performance of a
religious charity in the temple and was covered within the scope of definition of „specific
endowment‟ in Section 6(19). Specific endowment means any property or money endowed
for the performance of any specific service or charity in a math or temple, or for the
performance of any other religious charity.

8. Harbhajan Singh . vs State Of Punjab (2019 INSC 1012)

Property Law- East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949- Whether the tenants are
entitled to protection against eviction under the East Punjab Rent Act-No.

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Dismissed

The appellants were tenants in occupation of shops located in, District Fatehgarh Sahib,
Punjab. The appellants claim that they were inducted as tenants during the period 1965-69 by
Gurudwara Singh Sabha. However, no formal lease or agreements were executed and albeit,
over a period of time, rents were progressively increased. By the letter dated 2nd March
1978, the appellants were informed that the affairs of the gurudwara had come under the
control of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (‘SGPC’ for short) and they should,
therefore, pay the rent to SGPC. It is alleged that the appellants have been paying rent to
SGPC or the manager of the gurudwara but receipts have not been regularly issued. In the
year 1997, SGPC had filed an eviction petition against one of the appellants, Harbhajan
Singh, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (‘East Punjab
Rent Act’, for short) on two grounds, viz., (i) failure to pay rent, and (ii) SGPC needed the
property for construction of shops. Harbhajan Singh had, thereafter, deposited arrears of rent
on the first date of hearing. The eviction proceedings, however, had remained pending and
were not decided.

On 29th January 1998, the Religious Premises Act was enforced, and thereby introduced a
summary procedure for evicting unauthorised occupants from the premises/property
belonging to the religious institutions. Thereafter, SGPC had filed ejectment  petitions under
the Religious Premises Act before the Collector for eviction of the appellants stating that the
appellants were in unauthorised occupation.
The appellants, on receipt of notices from the Collector under Section 4 of the Religious
Premises Act, had filed the writ petitions challenging the vires of the enactment before the
High Court, which by the impugned judgment have been dismissed.

The primary challenge before the High Court was to the explanation to clause (a) to Section 3
of the Religious Premises Act on the ground that the provision creates an unintelligible
classification to the disadvantage of the tenants who are otherwise entitled to equal protection
as other tenants under the East Punjab Rent Act.

The pleas raised by the appellants were rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court
after referring to the object and purpose behind the impugned enactment, that is, to preserve
the property of religious institutions, by observing that public at large has an inherent interest
in the “religious institutions” which were prone to maladministration and mismanagement.

The primary contention raised by the appellants before the Supreme Court that as tenants they
are entitled to protection against eviction under the East Punjab Rent Act, which protection it
is submitted cannot be withdrawn and taken away under the Religious Premises Act.

The Supreme Court held that it has been observed that the underlying reason for exclusion of
property belonging to the government from the ambit of the Rent Control Act is that the
government while dealing with the citizens in respect of property belonging to it would not
act as a private landlord but would act in public interest, albeit this reasoning would equally
apply to “religious institutions” as defined. The religious institutions as held are meant to
carry out public purpose and the legislature can proceed accordingly that the religious
institutions would act in public interest for which they were established. The Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal and also held that it is only when the terms of the grant, lease or
allotment are not adhered to or have been determined or the period of allotment, lease or
grant as fixed has come to an end, that the person in occupation is treated to be in
unauthorised occupation. This is a pre-condition which confers the right on the religious
institution to seek eviction of a person in unauthorised occupation of the religious premises.

9. Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala vs Baba Gopal Dass Chela Surti Dass (2020
INSC 0096)

Civil Law- The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Whether the plaintiff Charan Dass could
represent the Trust known as Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala which is also known as Prabhu Wala
and whether the suit filed by the Charan Dass is maintainable-Yes

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Allowed

The appellant had filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Baba Gopal
Dass (since deceased) to vacate the management of Mandir, building and other property. The
appellant has alleged itself to be the owner of the suit property being managed by the
Manager and Trustees. The defendant was said to be a Sevadar. In the said suit, the stand of
the defendant was that the representatives of the plaintiff Manohar Lal and Charan Dass were
never appointed as Managers or Trustees of the appellant and they fraudulently got their
names entered in the revenue record. The stand of the defendant was that he did everything
for the welfare of the Mandir and never sought instructions from the plaintiff and they have
no right to seek rendition of accounts from the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, the
learned trial court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property?

3. Whether the plaintiff have no locus standi to file the suit?

4. Whether no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff for filing this suit?

On issue Nos. 1 and 2, the learned trial court held that the defendant is Sevadar of plaintiff
Trust and that the plaintiff does not want to keep the defendant as he is not properly watching
the interest of the Mandir and that he has not rendered the accounts of the income of the
Temple. The Court also found that the defendant is not claiming ownership of the property in
question.

The trial court declined to grant mandatory injunction to the defendant to vacate the Mandir
but held the plaintiff was entitled to rendition of accounts. The plaintiff alone filed first
appeal aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned trial court.

The learned First Appellate Court held that the Sevadar is liable to be removed where
Sevadar asserts title hostile and fails to keep regular accounts.

The defendant filed second appeal before the High Court aggrieved against the decree passed
by the First Appellate Court. During the pendency of the second appeal, Baba Gopal Dass
died and one Ram Niwas, claiming to be Chela of Baba Gopal Dass was ordered to be
impleaded to represent the estate. Such order was challenged by the appellant before this
Court wherein it was held that Ram Niwas had been impleaded to represent the defendant but
that will not clothe him to be successor in interest in the property and that the status of
deceased Baba Gopal Dass as well as Ram Niwas have to be independently considered as a
preliminary issue in the second appeal.

In second appeal, the first substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission of
appeal whereas second substantial question of law was framed after the order passed by the
Supreme Court.
1. Whether the plaintiff Charan Dass could represent the Trust known as Ghat Talab Kaulan
Wala which is also known as Prabhu Wala and whether the suit filed by the Charan Dass is
maintainable?
2. Whether status of the deceased Baba Gopal Dass as well as that of Ram Niwas, when
independently considered, would make them Legal Representatives when Gopal Dass had
mentioned himself to be ‘Sevadar’ and Ram Niwas as alleged Chela of Baba Gopal Dass?”

While deciding first substantial question of law, the suit was found to be not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the High Court erred in law in
finding that the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 92 of the Code as such provision is
meant for invocation of jurisdiction against the Trust. Section 92 of the Code has no
applicability in respect of a suit instituted by a Trust.

In respect of the second substantial question of law, the High Court held that the defendant
was only a Sevadar as admitted in his statement in the earlier suit and that Ram Niwas was
impleaded as his legal representative. He is only a member of public who could offer his
services in the place of deceased Defendant. The High Court found that there was no
evidence that Ram Niwas was ever appointed by Chela or in any other manner but as any
member of public, he was offering his services to the Temple.

The plaintiff filed appeal in the Supreme Court aggrieved by the decision of the High Court.
The SC held that the order passed by the High Court in respect of first substantial question of
law is not sustainable. Section 92 of the Code contemplates a suit against a Trust either for
removing any trustee; appointing new trustee; or vesting any property in a trustee etc. but the
present suit itself is by a Trust against a Sevadar, therefore, the procedure prescribed under
Section 92 of the Code would not be applicable in a suit by a Trust. Section 92 of the Code
confers right on a person in case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust
created for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. Since the Trust itself was the
plaintiff, the finding of the High Court is clearly erroneous and not sustainable. The fact is
that Baba Gopal Dass has been found to be Sevadar as per statement given in the previous
suit for permanent injunction. Therefore, Ram Niwas as legal representative of Baba Gopal
Dass will not have a larger interest than what was vested in the original defendant. Ram
Niwas has been found to be doing service to the Temple as member of public. The High
Court has affirmed the finding that Ram Niwas could offer his services but he has not proved
that he was appointed as Chela of Baba Gopal Dass.  Still further, the decree for rendition of
accounts could be executed only against the deceased Baba Gopal Dass, therefore, after his
demise, such decree cannot be executed. The order of the High Court in respect of first
substantial question of law is set aside.

10. Idol Of Sri Renganathaswamy vs P K Thoppulan Chettiar (2020 INSC

0160)
Property Act- Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959- whether
the Deed of Settlement dated 8 July 1901 creates a specific endowment, regulated by the Act
of 1959-Yes

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Allowed

The first respondent is a trust represented by its Managing Trustee. The second and third
respondents are members of the first respondent. The suit property was originally purchased
on 2 June 1887 by Thoppulan Chettiar. On a portion of the property, he constructed a ‗Stone
Mandapam‘ for the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy. During the Hindu festival months, he
used to invite the deity of Sri Renganathaswamy and receive its blessings. After fourteen
continuous years of carrying on charitable activities, on 8 July 1901, Thoppulan Chettiar
executed a Deed of Settlement, prohibiting the future sale or mortgage of the suit property
and directing his descendants to continue carrying out these charitable activities upon his
death from the income of ‗heir business‘. By a lease deed dated 29 April 1978, the suit
property was leased out to Sri Renga Fibre for twenty years. Sri Renga Fibre further sub-let
the suit property to various third parties. A portion of the suit property admeasuring 2,500
square feet was encroached upon by third parties and the first respondent had filed a suit for
eviction of the encroachers before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy. Owing to the
difficulties in maintaining the suit property and preventing encroachment, the managing
trustees of the first respondent decided to sell the suit property (20,865 square feet) to the
fourth respondent, leaving aside 4,135 square feet, where the Stone Mandapam‘ was situated.
The object of the sale was to use the interest generated from the sale consideration for
carrying out the object of the charity. By an agreement dated 1 February 2001, the first
respondent sought to sell land admeasuring 20,865 square feet (out of property admeasuring
25,000 square feet) to the fourth respondent. The present dispute concerns the proposed sale
of the 20,865 square feet.

The first respondent instituted a suit in 2004 before the Second Additional Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirapalli, seeking permission for sale of the suit property in favour of the fourth
respondent and to deposit the sale proceeds in a nationalised bank. The proposed sale was
resisted by the appellant, namely the idol of Sri Renganathaswamy represented by its
Executive Officer (the fourth defendant). It was contended by the appellant that the trust had
no right to alienate the property and that Thoppulan Chettiar had dedicated the entire property
to the idol for the performance of charitable activities. The appellant alleged that the first
respondent is a public religious trust created for carrying out specific charities and therefore
the suit property constituted a specific endowment as contemplated under Section 6(19) of
the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and OS No 706 of 1984 O S 60 of 2004 Charitable
Endowments Act 19593. According to the appellant, under Section 34 of the Act of 1959,
only the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments has the power to
grant sanction for alienation of the suit property of a trust and the civil court has no
jurisdiction.
On 10 November 2004, the Second Additional Subordinate Judge decreed the first
respondent‘s suit and held that the Act of 1959 was not applicable to the first respondent trust
as it was a private trust and not a public trust. The trial judge relied upon the fact that the
register of properties owned by the appellant made no mention of the suit property and held
that the Deed of Settlement did not vest the suit property in the appellant. Accordingly, it was
held that Section 34 of the Act of 1959 had no applicability and the proposed sale could be
sanctioned only by a civil court. In appeal, by a judgement dated 31 August 2005, the
Principal District Judge, Tiruchirapalli upheld the judgment of the trial court.

The appellant preferred a second appeal before the Madras High Court. By its judgement
dated 1 November 2016 the High Court dismissed the second appeal, holding that the Deed
of Settlement did not create any charge or encumbrance in favour of the appellant. The High
Court held that Section 34 of the Act of 1959 had no applicability as the first respondent trust
is a private trust and not a religious trust and therefore, the civil court could permit the
proposed sale of the property.

These findings were challenged by the appellant before the Supreme Court.

The question that aroused for consideration was whether the Deed of Settlement dated 8 July
1901 creates a specific endowment, regulated by the Act of 1959. In order to adjudicate upon
the dispute, it was necessary for the Court to determine the nature of the endowment under
the Deed of Settlement. 

The SC held that the Government may, on application made by the trustee of any Hindu or
Jain public charitable endowment, or where there are more trustees than one, then by those
trustees or a majority of them and with the concurrence of the trustee or trustees making the
application, extend, by notification, to such charitable endowment all or any of the provisions
of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, and thereupon the provisions so extended shall
apply to such charitable endowment as if it were a specific endowment. In this case, the
specific endowment created is an absolute endowment in favour of the religious charity as
understood under the Act of 1959. Therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1959 are applicable
to the first respondent. Thus SC allowed the appeal.

11. Sarika vs. Administrator, Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain

(M.P.) & Ors. (2020 INSC 0450)

Prevention of erosion of Shivalinga in Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple at Ujjain-Directions

were given by the Supreme Court.

Practice and Procedure- Appeal- Allowed

In this case the Supreme Court is monitoring the compliance of the judgment and order
passed by it in a Civil Appeal. The SC has appointed an Expert Committee consisting of
experts of Archaeological Survey of India and Geological Survey of India concerning the
prevention of erosion of Shivalinga in Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple at Ujjain. The Expert
Team visited Ujjain. Its Report indicates that there was erosion of Shivalinga after the last
inspection, and it is a continuing process. 

The SC has called for the Action Taken Report from the Temple Committee. The Temple
Committee has submitted the response to the various measures pointed out by the Committee
of the Experts in the inspection report dated. Since it has been noted that the deterioration and
erosion of Lingam is a continuing process, the photographs of July 2020 indicate that there
was further erosion of the Lingam. A patch of Shivlinga towards the side of the deity of Shri
Kartikeyan is quite visible. The matter is of grave concern as due to reckless offerings, the
Lingam of Omkareshwar Temple was destroyed.

After considering the reports of the expert committee the SC issues guidelines for the
preservation of the temple.