Ashish And 5 Ors vs Murti Shri Ramchandra Virajman ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5385 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 12.05.2022
 
Delivered on 27.06.2022
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3841 of 2018
 

 
Appellant :- Ashish And 5 Ors
 
Respondent :- Murti Shri Ramchandra Virajman And 20 Ors
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kartikeya Saran,Ujjawal Satsangi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Kuldeep Singh,Santosh Kumar Mishra,Vipin Vinod
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the defendants-appellants and Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents No.2 to 7.

2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter referred to as "CPC") arises out of judgment and decree dated 18.7.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Mirzapur in Civil Appeal No.42 of 2016 setting aside the judgment and order dated 11.12.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mirzapur in Original Suit No.265 of 2015 and remanding back the matter to the Trial Court.

3. A brief sketch of facts is necessary for the better appreciation of the case which are as under :

4. The dispute relates to the property being Arazi No.548, 549/1, 549/2, 546, 547, 554, 569, 570, 571, 575, 577 and 572 measuring 5 Bigha and 18 Biswa situated in Village-Tarkapur, Tappa - 84, Pargana - Kantit, Tehsil and District Mirzapur. On 13.03.1947, one Kedar Nath Mishra was given a lease of aforesaid land in perpetuity. He executed an agreement for largesse (bakshishnama) (Endowment Deed) dated 17.08.1949, dedicating the entire property to "Lord Ram Chandraji" and His idol was to be installed over the said property and thereafter necessary religious worship was to be performed under the control and guidance of one Kailash Nath Agrawal, after him, his successors.

5. Kailash Nath Agrawal did not get the idol of Lord Ram Chandraji installed over the property dedicated, thus a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents being Original Suit No.265 of 2014 against the present appellants claiming relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellants from managerial capacity of the property in question, as well as restraining the appellants from selling off the property in dispute and also for transferring the entire managerial work and rights for maintaining and taking care of the deity to the district administration. The said suit was contested by the defendants-appellants who filed their written statement denying the plaint allegation.

6. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed by the defendants-appellants on 18.3.2015, on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable in view of Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC, as it did not disclose any cause of action and from the statement in the plaint, the suit appears to be barred by law. The Trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2017 allowed the application 75Ga filed by defendants-appellants and rejected the objection 78Ga filed by plaintiffs-respondents and dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and order, Civil Appeal No.42 of 2017 was preferred in which the lower Appellate Court framed following point of determination :

"क्या प्रस्तुत वाद आदेश 7 नियम 11 जा. दी. के प्राविधानों से बाधित है?"

7. The lower Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 18.7.2018 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 11.12.2017 and remanded the matter back and directed the Trial Court to frame issues on the basis of pleading of the parties and decide the suit on merits. Hence this appeal.

8. Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the suit filed under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. on behalf of plaintiffs was not maintainable as no deity has been installed in the property in question and thus no person can file a suit as a next friend. He next contended that the person, who was a party to the agreement dated 17.8.1949 or his legal heirs could file civil suit for the breach of the clauses mentioned in the said agreement and no third party can maintain a suit against the appellants. He next contended that suit at the instance of the plaintiffs-respondents was not maintainable under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and at best could have been filed under Section 92 read with Order 32 Rule 1 CPC as the matter relates to public charity and the issue raised by the plaintiffs is for installation of a deity and claiming to be the next friend of the deity. He also contended that from perusal of the document of 1949 and the event, which had followed since then, no trust either private or public was created and in other words, condition mentioned therein had become redundant in the present time.

9. According to appellants' counsel, installation of an idol accessible to public at large is sine qua non for creation of a public trust. In the instant case, neither idol has been installed till date nor any trust has been created, thus institution of a suit as a next friend of a deity cannot be maintained. He then tried to impress upon the Court that application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was maintainable before the Trial Court as the plaintiffs have failed to disclose any cause of action. Moreover, from the reading of the plaint it is clear that no suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is maintainable.

10. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Bajoria and others vs. Hemant Kumar Jalan and others, Civil Appeal Nos.5819-5822 of 2021 decided on 21.9.2021.

11. Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that endowment once made cannot be revoked. According to him, endowment was created by dedication of property to the deity "Shri Ram Chandraji" and the property became debutter property. He then contended that registered deed dated 17.8.1949 by Kedar Nath Mishra was not a deed of agreement. It was in fact a deed of dedication in favour of deity "Shri Ram Chandraji", and Kailash Nath Agrawal was appointed only as a manager. According to him, once the dedication was made to the deity, which is a juristic person, the legal personality of deity can exist and endowment made is competent and efficacious independently, even if the idol does not exist. According to him, it is pious obligation of Kailash Nath Agrawal and his legal heirs to have carried out the pious purpose for which Kedar Nath Mishra had executed the deed in the year 1949. He then contended that Section 92 is not attracted in the present case as it relates to ''public charity' and if there is any alleged breach of trust created for public purpose then a suit under Section 92 CPC is maintainable, while the plaintiffs had filed the present suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC as a representative suit so as to give effect to deed of 1949.

12. He has relied upon a Full Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha vs. Ram Lal Maitra 1909 Law Suit (Cal) 89, wherein the question which was referred to the Full bench was; "Does the principle of Hindu Law which invalidates a gift other than to a sentient being capable of accepting it, apply to a bequest to trustees for the establishment of an image and the worship of a Hindu deity after the testator's death and make such a bequest void?" The Calcutta High Court held that Hindu Law recognizes dedications for the establishment of the image of a deity and for the maintenance and worship thereof.

13. I have heard the respective counsels and perused the material before this Court.

14. Before adverting to decide the issue as to whether the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was maintainable or not, and whether the lower Appellate Court had rightly remanded the matter to the Trial Court, to be decided on merit after framing of issues or not, glance of provisions of Section 92, Order 1 Rule 8, Order 7 Rule 11 and Order 32 Rule 1 of CPC are necessary for better appreciation of the case which are extracted hereasunder :

"92. Public charities. - (1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the 2 [leave of the Court], may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree:

(a) removing any trustee;

(b) appointing a new trustee;

(bb) for delivery of possession of any trust property against a person who has ceased to be trustee or has been removed.

(c) vesting any property in a trustee;

(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property;

d) directing accounts and inquiries;

(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;

(f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;

(g) settling a scheme; or

(h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.

(2) Save as provided by the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (XX of 1863), or by any corresponding law in force in the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States, no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in sub-section (1) shall be instituted in respect of any such trust as is therein referred to except in conformity with the provisions of that sub-section.

(3) The Court may alter the original purposes of an express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and allow the property or income of such trust or any portion thereof to be applied cypres in one or more of the following circumstances, namely :

(a) where the original purposes of the trust, in whole or in part, 

(i) have been, as far as may be, fulfilled; or

(ii) cannot be carried out at all, or cannot be carried out according to the directions given in the instrument creating the trust or, where there is no such instrument, according to the spirit of the trust; or

(b) where the original purposes of the trust provide a use for a part only of the property available by virtue of the trust; or

(c) where the property available by virtue of the trust and other property applicable for similar purposes can be more effectively used in conjunction with, and to that end can suitably be made applicable to any other purpose, regard being had to the spirit of the trust and its applicability to common purposes; or

(d) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, were laid down by reference to an area which then was, but has since ceased to be, a unit for such purposes; or

(e) where the original purposes, in whole or in part, have, since they were laid down,

(i) been adequately provided for by other means, or

(ii) ceased, as being useless or harmful to the community, of

(iii) ceased to be, in law, charitable, or

(iv) ceased in any other way to provide a suitable and effective method of using the property available by virtue of the trust, regard being had to the spirit of the trust."

"8 - One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest- (1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit,-

(a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested;

(b) the Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.

(2) The Court shall, in every case where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff's expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct.

(3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit.

(4) No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff's expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub-rule (2).

(5) Where any person suing or defending in any such suit does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence, the Court may substitute in his place any other person having the same interest in the suit.

(6) A decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted, or defended, as the case may be.

Explanation - For the purpose of determining whether the persons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons have the same cause of action as the person on whom behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or defend the suit, as the case may be."

"11. Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases-

(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law:

(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9;

Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff."

"1. Minor to sue by next friend.- Every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in such shall be called the next friend of the minor.

Explanation-In this Order, "minor" means a person who has not attained his majority within the meaning of section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) where the suit relates to any of the matters mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of section 2 of that Act or to any other matter."

15. From the reading of Section 92 CPC, it is clear that a suit in a representative capacity is fundamentally maintainable on behalf of the entire body of persons who are interested in the trust. It is for the vindication of public rights. The principal object behind the provision is to afford protection to public trust and to prevent vexatious proceedings from being initiated by irresponsible person against the trust, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman Madappa vs. M.N. Mahanthadevaru and Ors. AIR 1966 SC 878.

16. For the application of this Section, three conditions must be satisfied, (i) the Suit must relate to public, religious or charitable trust; (ii) there must be allegation of breach of trust or the direction of the Court must be required for administration of a trust and; (iii) the reliefs claimed must be mentioned in the Section.

17. In Ranchhoddas Kalidas & Ors. vs. Goswami Shree Mahalaxmi Vahuji & Ors. AIR 1953 Bom. 153, Bombay High Court had explained the conditions, which must be satisfied so as to maintain a suit under Section 92 CPC.

18. For leave to file suit in representative capacity under Section 92 CPC, existence of trust is necessary. While the object of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is that all persons interested in a suit, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, must be joined as parties so that the Court may finally adjudicate upon the rights of all parties and the orders of the Court may be safely executed by those, who are compelled to obey them and future litigation may be avoided. This rule is an enabling provision which entitles one party to represent many, who have a common cause of action.

19. In Kumaravelu Chettiar and Ors. vs. T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar and Ors. AIR 1933 PC 183, Privy Council held that Order 1 Rule 8 CPC has been framed in order to save time and expenses, to ensure a single comprehensive trial of questions in which large body of persons are interested and to avoid harassment to parties by multiplicity of suits. It is thus a rule of convenience.

20. The distinction between the suit under Section 92 and Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is that in a suit to be instituted under Section 92, prior permission of the Court is mandatory, while in a suit under Order 1 Rule 8, the leave can be granted post institution of the suit.

21. Thus, from the reading of Section 92 and Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, it is clear that a suit under Section 92 can only be maintained where it relates to public charitable and religious trust, and there is an allegation of breach of trust and direction of the Court is required for the administration of trust, while there is no such requirement for filing a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, which though is a representative suit but on other footing.

22. Now coming to order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) it is clear that a plaint can be rejected if it does not disclose a cause of action or where from the statement made in the plaint, the suit appears to barred by any law. The Rule is mere procedure. The Court has to give a meaningful reading to the plaint and if it is manifestly vexatious or meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the Court may exercise its power under this rule.

23. A plea that there was no cause of action for the suit is different from the plea that plaint does not disclose a cause of action. In the latter case, it is the duty of the Court to decide the question before issuing summons, and reject the plaint without issuing summons. In State of Orissa vs. Klockner & Co. (1996) 8 SCC 377 and in Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property 1998 (7) SCC 184 the Apex Court had clarified the said position.

24. The words "cause of action" means "any cause of action". If the plaint discloses a cause of action even in part it cannot be rejected. Recently, the Supreme Court in Rajendra Bajoria and others (supra) while dealing with matter under Order 7 Rule 11 held that reading of the averments made in the plaint should not only be formal but also meaningful. Relevant paras 15, 17 and 20 are extracted hereas under :

"15. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that reading of the averments made in the plaint should not only be formal but also meaningful. It has been held that if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, and a meaningful reading thereof would show that the pleadings are manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, then the court should exercise its power Under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure. It has been held that such a suit has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing itself.

...

17. It could thus be seen that the court has to find out as to whether in the background of the facts, the relief, as claimed in the plaint, can be granted to the Plaintiff. It has been held that if the court finds that none of the reliefs sought in the plaint can be granted to the Plaintiff under the law, the question then arises is as to whether such a suit is to be allowed to continue and go for trial. This Court answered the said question by holding that such a suit should be thrown out at the threshold. This Court, therefore, upheld the order passed by the trial court of rejecting the suit and that of the appellate court, thereby affirming the decision of the trial court. This Court set aside the order passed by the High Court, wherein the High Court had set aside the concurrent orders of the trial court and the appellate court and had restored and remanded the suit for trial to the trial court.

...

20. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the power conferred on the court to terminate a civil action is a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated Under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure are required to be strictly adhered to. However, Under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the duty is cast upon the court to determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action, by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, read in conjunction with the documents relied upon, or whether the suit is barred by any law. This Court has held that the underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the Plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted."

25. In the instant case, the endowment deed executed by Kedar Nath Mishra on 17.8.1949 clearly states that the property mentioned was dedicated to "Lord Ram Chandraji" and the deed further took note of the fact that the possession was also transferred to the deity and the doner did not keep any right with him. He had appointed Kailash Nath Agrawal to manage the affairs and look after worship of the deity after it was installed, which was in times to come, to be looked after by his legal heirs. Relevant extract of the endowment deed is as under :

"पट्टा मजकूर का कुल नजराना बाबू कैलाशनाथ अग्रवाल वल्द देवी प्रसाद अग्रवाल निवासी मोहल्ला बसनई बाजार मिरजापुर ने अदा किया है और बवख्त हासिल करने पट्टा मजकूर यह बात तै हो गई थी नियत जायदाद श्रीराम चंद्र जी को जो उसी इमारत में स्थापित होगें समर्पित कर दी जावेगी और चढाई जावेगी चुनांच तय मुकिर इस बात तै शुदा के मुताबिक वदुरूस्ती होश हवास व खुशी वो रजामंदी विलाकिसी जब्रो इकरात जायदाद मुझ हिस्सा जैल श्री रामचंद्र जी को जो उसी इमारत में स्थापित होगें समर्पित कर देते हैं अब जायदाद मजकूर से कोई वास्ता हम मुकिर को बाकी नहीं है और हम मुकिर ने कब्जा भी अपना ...कर दिया है और श्रीरामचंद्र जी को कब्जा दे दिया है और श्री रामचंद्र जी जायदाद मुफस्सला जैल के यहां ...इस्तम्दवादी बजरिये वसतावेजताजा हो गये और आइन्दा हमेशा रहेगें जायदाद मजकूर का इंतजाम मिनजानिब श्री रामचंद्र जी व० कैलाशनाथ वल्द बाबू देबी प्रसाद अग्रवाल मजकूर व बाद वफात उनके वरसान सिलसिले वार करते रहे और जायदाद ...की आमदनी श्रीरामचंद्र जी के सेवा व पूजा व राजभोग इत्यादि में खर्च करते रहेगें और उनको या उनके वरसान किसी और शख्स को जायदाद मजकूर की आमदनी की किसी और मद में खर्च करने का अख्तियार न होगा और उनको यह उनके वरसान और किसी शख्स को जायदाद मजकूर को किसी और तौर पर मुन्तब्दिल करने का अख्तयार हासिल न होगा।"

26. The Hindu Law has been recognizing the religious and charitable gifts from ancient time and the Hindu concepts of religious and charitable gifts is as old as the Rigveda, wherein the term used is ''Istha' and ''Purtta". The compound word Istha-Purtta has been retained in the writings of all Brahminical sages and commentators down to modern days. By "Istha" mean Vedic sacrifices and rites and gifts in connection with the same; "Purtta", on the other hand, means and signifies other pious and charitable acts which are unconnected with any Srauta or Vedic sacrifice.

27. In every act of dedication, there are two essential parts, one of which is called Sankalpa or the formula of resolve, and the other Utsarga or renunciation. Sankalp state what object the founder has in making the gift, while Utsarga, on the other hand, completes a gift by renouncing ownership of the thing given.

28. In all types of endowment, the purpose of founder is clearly expressed in the Sankalpa while Utsarga or renunciation divests the founder of his rights in the property dedicated.

29. Thus, once a property is dedicated to a deity, after Sankalp and Utsarg, as in the present case for establishment of idol of "Shri Ram Chandraji" the endowment was complete at the hands of doner Kedar Nath Mishra, and it vested in the juristic person Shri Ram Chandraji though the idol was not installed. The Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha (supra) held as under :

"66. To sum up

(i) The view that no valid dedication of property can be made by a will to a deity, the image of which is not in existence at the time of the death of the testator, is based upon a double fiction, namely fist that a Hindu deity is for all purposes a juridical person and secondly that a dedication to the deity has the same characteristics and is subject to the same restrictions as a gift to a human being. The first of these propositions is too broadly stated and the second is in-consistent with the first principles of Hindu jurisprudence.

(ii) The Hindu Law recognises dedications for the establishment of the image of a deity and for the maintenance and worship thereof. The property so dedicated to a pious purpose is placed extra commercial and is entitled to special protection at the hands of the sovereign whose duty it is to intervene to prevent fraud and waste in dealing with religious endowments Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v. Lakhmiram Govindram (1887) I.L.R. 12 Bom. 247 affirmed, on appeal, by the Judicial Committee in Chotelal Lakhmiram v. Monohar Ganesh Tambekar (1899) I.L.R. 24 Bom. 50 L.R. 26 I.A. 199. It is immaterial that the image of the deity has not been established before the death of the testator or is periodically set up and destroyed in the course of the year."

30. The suit filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction restricting defendants-appellants from the managerial capacity of the property and also restraining them from selling the property in question as well as for transferring the entire managerial work and right for maintaining and taking care of the deity from the appellants to the administration, was thus maintainable under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.

31. The endowment made in 1949 by Kedar Nath Mishra divesting himself from the property, and vesting the same in Lord Shri Ram Chandraji, and giving only the managerial work to be performed by Kailash Nath Agrawal and his successors in form of worship and rituals of the deity.

32. The argument as to non maintainability of suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC holds no ground. It is the own case of the defendants-appellants that neither public or private trust was created, nor any deity was installed. Once the stand is to the extent that no public trust was created after 1949, Section 92 is not attracted and the suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was thus maintainable.

33. Now coming to the question as to whether any cause of action arose for filing the suit, the statement made in the plaint clearly reflect that Kedar Nath Mishra endowed the property to Lord Shri Ram Chandraji on 17.8.1949 giving managerial right to Kailash Nath Agrawal and his successors. The argument that endowment deed was never brought to its existence as no idol was installed would not attract Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the present case. From reading of the application filed by the defendants-appellants for rejection of plaint, no case is made out either under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) or (d) CPC. The Trial Court committed gross error in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) and dismissing the suit. The lower Appellate Court had rightly set aside the order of the Trial Court and remanded back the matter to be decided after framing the issues on the basis of the pleading of the parties and directing to decide the suit on merit.

34. This Court finds that once the property was endowed in 1949 to Lord Shri Ram Chandraji, the rights of doner came to an end and the property vested in the deity whether it was installed or not. Lord Shri Ram Chandraji is a juristic person and the property vested in Him once the endowment was complete following the Sankalp and Utsarg.

35. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the judgment and order of lower Appellate Court needs no interference by this Court.

36. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.6.2022

Kushal