Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mandsaur District Vilalge Rural ... vs Shri Swami Madhavanand Ashram Sant ... on 15 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1 SA-443-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
SA No. 443 of 2024
(MANDSAUR DISTRICT VILALGE RURAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE THROUGH SARASWATI SHISHU
MANDIR DHAMNAR DISTT. M Vs SHRI SWAMI MADHAVANAND ASHRAM SANT NIWAS TRUST VILLAGE
DHAMNAR DISTT. MANDSAUR THROUGH CHAIRMAN MAHA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 15-07-2025
Senior Advocate Shri Sunil Kumar Jain along with Shri Abhishek
Tugnawat, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Yash Pal Rathore - Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Records of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have been
received.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents on
admission of appeal.
Plaintiff- Shri Swami Madhavanand Ashram Sant Niwas Trust,
Mahant Ganesanand Shishy Gurumukhanandji, Bherulal, Bhawarlal,
Umedram, Rambhatiya, Subhash Gandhi, Jaishankar and Rajendra Kumar
Sureka had filed a civil suit for declaration, possession, mesne profit and
permanent injunction against Mandsaur Jila Gramin Shiksha Samiti , Swami
Premanandji Maharaj, Ramkishan and Mahesh. The plaintiffs had assailed
the gift deed dated 04/05/2012 executed by defendant no. 2 Swami
Premanandji Maharaj in favour of defendant no. 1. The trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 12/05/2023 passed in RCS-A no. 1921 of 2015,
allowed the suit and declared that the plaintiffs are title holder of the disputed
property and directed defendant no. 1 to hand over the vacant possession of
the property to the plaintiffs. It was declared that the gift deed dated
2 SA-443-2024
04/05/2012 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Further,
defendant no. 1 was directed to pay mesne profit of Rs. 5000/- per month till
delivery of the possession.
The judgment dated 12/05/2023 of the trial Court was assailed in First
Appeal i.e. RCA no. 808/2023. Learned first Appellate Court, vide
impugned judgment and decree dated 08th December, 2023 dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the findings of the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court and the
first Appellate Court concluded that the suit property is the property of
private trust constituted vide Trust Deed dated 25/11/1974 Ex-P/1. Learned
counsel referring the content of Trust Deed Ex.-P/1 and the evidence on
record, contends that the findings of the trial Court as well as the first
Appellate Court is palpably erroneous and against the evidence on record.
Learned counsel further contends that the trial Court and the first Appellate
Court committed error of law in concluding that the gift deed Ex.-P/14 was
void for the reason that the donor Swami Premanandji Maharaj had no title
or authority to gift the property.
Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
revenue records show that the disputed property was recorded in the name of
Shri Sant Niwas Pujya Shri Mahamandleshwar Swami Madhavanandji,
Premanandji and Mukhanandji which goes to show that the suit property was
a trust property, therefore, the donor Swami Premanandji Maharaj had no
right to gift the property.
Heard. Perused the records and the ground of appeal.
3 SA-443-2024
In the considered opinion of this Court, following substantial questions
of law are involved in present second appeal-
i) Whether the trial Court and the first Appellate Court
committed perversity and error of law in concluding, against the
evidence on record, that the suit property is a trust property ?
ii) Whether the first Appellate Court committed an error of
law in affirming the findings of the trial Court without assigning
the reasons for conclusion ?
iii) Whether the trial Court and the first Appellate Court
committed an error in declaring that the gift deed Ex.-P/14 dated
04/05/2012 is v o i d for the reason that Swami Premanandji
Maharaj had no authority to gift the property comprised therein ?
The respondents may file brief return within a period of eight weeks.
Heard on IA no. 1615/2024, 10251/2024, 5835/2025, applications for
stay filed under Order XXXXI Rule 5 of the CPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have
filed execution in furtherance of the impugned judgment and decree dated
12/05/2023 and 08/12/2023. The appellant is running a public school namely,
Saraswati Shishu Mandir on part of disputed property earlier as tenant and
later, as an owner in view of gift deed. The execution of the impugned
judgment and decree may cause substantial loss to the appellant.
Considered.
Present second appeal is admitted on the above stated substantial
questions of law. The Court is satisfied that the appellant may suffer
4 SA-443-2024
substantial loss, if the execution of the impugned judgment and decree is not
stayed pending hearing of the appeal.
The Supreme Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs.
Federal Motors (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 1 SCC 705 held that the appellate
Court while passing the order of stay under Rule 5 of Order XLI of CPC, has
jurisdiction to impose such reasonable terms, as in its opinion would
reasonably compensate the decree holder for the loss occasioned by the delay
in execution of decree for the reason of stay order, in the event of appeal
being dismissed.
Considering the overall circumstances and in view of relative
prejudices, in the considered opinion of this Court, the operation of
impugned judgment and decree needs to be stayed, subject to compliance
with certain conditions.
Consequently, I.A. is allowed with the following directions:
1. The execution of impugned judgment and decree dated
12/05/2023 and 08/12/2023 shall remain stayed during pendency of this
appeal, subject to the appellant furnishing personal bond of Rs.
10,00,000/- and a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of
the trial Court as security for due performance of the decree, as may
ultimately be binding upon him and for compliance with following
conditions:-
(a) The appellant shall furnish personal bond and the
surety bond within a period of fifteen days, failing which, the stay
on execution of decree shall stand vacated.
5 SA-443-2024
(b) The appellant shall pay Rs. 10,000/- per month to the
respondent(s) for the occupation and possession over the premises,
wherein the school is operated.
(c) The appellant shall keep track of the hearings of
appeal and mark his presence on every date of hearing, either
personally or through his representatives.
(d) The appellant shall ensure early disposal of the appeal
in compliance with the directives of the Court and shall not
attempt to delay the proceedings.
List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
amol
