Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shri Shamaram Mahant And Ors vs Ram Dayal Chela And Ors on 9 April, 2025

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2025:RJ-JD:15405]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 336/2008

1. Shri Shamaram Mahant, aged 57 years
2. Shri Navalram, aged 59 years
    Both Chela of Late Bhagwant Dass, R/o Anand Ashram, Rani
Bazar, Bikaner.
3. Legal representatives of deceased Shri Bhagtiram, Chela Atma
Ram, Shri Ram Prasad Ramsnehi Chela, Shri Mohan Ram Ji, aged
37 years, R/o Bada Ramdwara, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.
4. Shri Sahiram Ji Chela Shri Harsukhdasji, aged, 55 years, R/o
Anand Ashram, Rani Bazar, Bikaner.
5. Shri Mangalaram Chela Shri Ramji Dasji, aged 76 years, R/o
Anand Ashram, Rani Bazar, Bikaner.
6. Legal      representative         of    deceased        Smt.     Sonadevi   wd/o
Hariram, Swaru Ram @ Swaran Kumar adopted son of Hari Ram
aged 46 years, R/o Near Jail Sadar Bikaner, at present residing
at Prathana Bungalow, Opposite Ambedkar Hall, Saraspura,
Ahmedabad.
7. Suraj Kala Bhandar through Smt. Kamla, aged 63 years, R/o
Bada Bazar, Bikaner.
8. Legal Representatives of deceased Smt. Champadevi wd/o
Ramdas Sonar through
8/1 Shri Jaswant S/o Dulichand, aged 47 yrs
8/2 Shri Anand S/o Dulichand, aged 45 yrs
8/3 Shri Vijaya S/o Dulichand, aged 42 yrs Residents of Tulsi
Shyam Flats, Navavai, Ahmedabad - 13
8/4 Shri Suresh S/o Sheoratan, aged 45 yrs, R/o Sector 7-A,
Block No. C-3, Nirnaya Nagar, Ahmedabad- 81
9. Peeti Automobiles through Selesh, aged 30 years, Rani Bazar,
Bikaner.
10. Shri Rameshwar Prasad S/o Shri Jetharam, aged 68 years,
R/o Sinthal (Bikaner).

                                                                     ----Appellants

                                          Versus



                        (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:15405]                  (2 of 27)                        [CFA-336/2008]


1. Ram Dayal Chela Late Shri Ram Narainji, Ramsnehi Sadhu,
R/o Sinthal, Bada Ramdwara, Sonaron Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
2. Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal, Tehsil & District Bikaner.
3. Shri Jagdish Ram
4. Shri Tulsi Ram
     Both Chela of Late Bhagwant Dass, R/o Anand Ashram, Rani
Bazar, Bikaner.
5. Legal representatives of deceased Shri Ramji, Chela Keshav
Das, Shri Madhavram (Madhodass) Chela Late Shri Mohanram Ji,
Village Nokha, District Bikaner.



                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Sohan lal Jain.
                                Mr. Abhinav Jain.
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit.
                                Mr. Prashant Tatia.
                                Mr. Manish Bhunwal.
                                Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit.
                                Mr. Shailendra Kumar.
                                Mr. Raju Singh Bhati for
                                Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Bhati, GC.

A.    Cases referred by the appellants:-
1.    Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs Ashutosh Agnihotri [2011 AIR
      SCW 688].
2.    Rangammal Vs Kuppuswami & Anr - (2011 (4) AIR SCW
      3428).
3.    Bachhaj Nahar Vs Nilima Mandal (Civil Appeal No.5798-
      5799/2008), decided on 23.09.2008.
4.    Om Prakash & Ors. Vs Ram Kumar & Ors. [AIR 1991 SC
      409].
5.    State Bank of India Vs Ajay Kumar Sood [2023 (7) SCC
      282].
6.    Central Board of Trustees Vs Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd.-
      [2018 (8) SCC 443].
7.    Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs Satya Chorone Requitte (AIR
      1979 SC 1682).


                     (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:15405]                  (3 of 27)                             [CFA-336/2008]


8.    Sital Das Vs Sant Ram - [1954 AIR SC 606].
9.    Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi &
      Ors. [AIR 2010 SC 475].
10.   Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs. Vs Ugrasen (D) by LRS & Ors.
      [2010 AIR SC 2210].
11.   Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs Randhir Singh [2010 AIR
      SCW 3308]
12.   Dilboo Vs Dhanraji [2000 (7) SCC 702].
13.   Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji Vs Maniben Jagmalbhai [2022
      (12) SCC 128]
14.   State of Uttrakhand Vs Mandir Sri Laxman - [S.C.- Civil
      Appeal No.4096/2008]
15.   AIR 1992 P&H 288- Mahant Amar Das Chela Mahant Jai Ram
      Dass Vs Shiromani Gurudwara Parbhandak Committee.
16.   AIR 1981 SC 1878- Math Sauna Vs Kedar Nath.
17.   AIR 1987 SC 2179 - Vinod Kumar Arora Vs Smt. Surjit
      Kaur.
18.   AIR 1986 DELHI 94 - Mahipalpur Co. Op Society Vs Smt.
      Prabhati.
19.   AIR 1968 SC 1032- Gurcharan Prasad Vs P. Krishnanand Giri.
20.   AIR     1966   SC    1603-       Sarangadeva               Periya   Matam      Vs
      Ramaswami Gounder.
21.   1991 CrlLJ 978, 980 (Guj.)- State of Gujarat Vs Bhaupendra.

B.    Cases referred by the respondents:-

1.    1990(2) RajasthanLR 672: Jankidass & Anr. Vs. Mahant
      Dhangir & Ors.
2.    1997 (4) SCC 102: Ranbir Das & anr. Vs. Kalyan Das &
      Anr.
3.    1988 (2) WLN 351: Poonam Chand by Lrs and Ors Vs. Laxmi
      Narain.
4.    1989 AIR SC 1530: Kali Prasad Agarwala and Ors Vs. M/s
      Bharat Coking Coal Ltd and Ors.
5.    2002 AIR Rajasthan 330: Devi Shankar Vs. Ugam Raj.




                     (Downloaded on 09/04/2025 at 09:51:35 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:15405]                   (4 of 27)                    [CFA-336/2008]


6.    2007 (11) SCC 736: Narain Prasad Aggarwal Vs. State of
      M.P.
7.    2007(11) SCC 357: Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Vs. Hardayal
      Singh Dhillon and Ors.
8.    2003 (7) SCC 301: Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mrs.
      Vijaya C. Gurshaney & Anr.
9.    2008 (1) ALL WC 437- Mahant Basant Kumar Giri Vs. Jagrup
      Giri and Anr.
10.   2015 AIR Rajasthan 179: Tara and 35 Ors. Vs. State of
      Rajasthan and Anr.
11.   1979 (4) SCC 790: Avadh Kishore Das Vs. Ram Gopal
      and Ors.
12.   1956 AIR (SC) 713 : Mohammad Shah Vs. Fasihuddin
      Ansari & Ors.


             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Judgment Reserved on : 26.03.2025

Judgment pronounced on : 09.04.2025

1. Heard the parties and perused the records as well as written

submissions.

2. The plaintiff/respondent nos. 1 and 2 had brought civil

original suit no. 77/1997 against the appellants and defendants /

respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. The suit has been decreed by the

impugned judgment and decree dated 27.5.2008 by the Additional

District Judge No. 2, Bikaner.

3. In the civil suit, the plaintiffs had prayed for declaration that

the suit property mentioned in Schedule "Ka" is property of the

Math and Ramdham Mandir and plaintiff no. 1 being Mahant of the

Math was owner of the property as Sewadaar. The plaintiffs further

sought for injunction against the respondents not to make

obstruction in respect of the suit property claiming themselves to

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (5 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

be owner thereof; if the defendants claim their possession or

possession of the defendant is found on the suit property, a decree

for recovery of possession has been sought for. Schedule "Ka" of

the plaint would reveal that the suit property has been identified

by name and boundary.

4. Bereft of factual details in the pleadings of the parties, the

real dispute lies in a very narrow compass. There is no dispute

that the parties are followers of Ram Sanehi Sampradaya, a cult

which worships their gurus and put their photographs/idols in a

temple. It is also not disputed that the main seat (gaddi) of the

Sampradaya is at Village Sinthal in the District of Bikaner. It is

also not disputed that Late Chaukas Ram Ji was Dada guru of the

Sampradaya. Chaukas Ram Ji selected and appointed late Ram

Narayan Ji as Mahant of the seat who remained as such during

1998 to 2005.

According to plaintiffs, plaintiff no. 1 Ram Dayal Ji who was

disciple of Ram Narayan Ji was selected as successor Mahant by

Ram Narayan Ji. Since Ram Dayal Ji was of immature age, Late

Bhagwat Das, the guru of respondent nos. 1 to 4 was appointed

as care taker (Adhikari) to look after the affairs till Ram Dayal Ji

get maturity. On Ramdayal Ji getting maturity, Bhagwat Das Ji

performed the traditional rituals of Chadar Poshi etc. and made

Ram Dayal Ji as Mahant.

According to the defendants, plaintiff Ram Dayal Ji was never

Mahant of the Gaddi, rather, he was just a Manager and Bhagwat

Das was real Mahant selected and appointed by Ram Narayan Ji.

According to the plaintiffs, only the existing Mahant who was

also Guru, was competent to select his successor whereas

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (6 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

according to the defendants unless all the followers accept any

nominee for Mahantship as their guru, there was no question of

assigning him the seat of Mahant. Plaintiff no.1 was never

recognized as Guru by other followers, rather, Bhagwat Das was

appointed as Mahant with the approval of the followers.

According to plaintiff, there are 9 properties mentioned in the

Schedule-"Ka" of the plaint situated at different places. Property

No. 1 Ramdham at Sinthal was main seat, property no. 2 Bada

Ramdwara at Bikaner was residence of the Mahant, property no. 3

Anand Ashram at Rani Bazar, Bikaner was a Hospital, Property No.

4 Ram Badi at Bikaner was of the trust which was illegally sold by

Bhagwat Das who had no authority to sell the property of the

Sampradaya. The plaintiff asserted that before Bhagwat Das,

property of the Sampradaya was never sold by any Mahant.

Property No. 5 known as Shri Kolyat Ji was a Dharmshala,

property no. 6 a house and shop at Karanpur was purchased in

1929, property no. 7 Mateli Ki Dukan was sold in the year 1964 by

the Mahant, who was not competent to sell it, property no. 8 at

Bada Bazar, Bikaner was property of the Trust which was allegedly

gifted by Ram Narayan Ji to Bhagwat Das and Bhagwat Das sold it

to Nawal Ram in 1971, property no. 9 a house at Kesaripura was

also sold years back.

According to the defendants, except the property at Sinthal,

other properties were not of the Sampradaya. In fact other

properties were individual properties of the followers. In a family

settlement, those properties were partitioned and allotted to the

respective followers. The property at Bada Ramdwara was

bifurcated in two parts by the then Mahant and south western

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (7 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

portion was declared as public trust and has already been

registered as such, the north eastern portion was declared as

private trust for the Sadhus of Sinthal seat.

According to the plaintiff, the Mahants of the Sampradaya

had no transferable right in respect of property of the Sampradaya

whereas according to the defendants, the Mahant had transferable

right as well as right to partition the property and create a Trust

(public or private) and get it registered accordingly.

5. The learned trial Judge framed following issues for

adjudication and on consideration of the evidences on the record

decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff/respondents.

(i) Issue no. 1 - Whether the suit property is of Ramdwara and

plaintiff no. 2 Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal is its owner and

status of the Mahant is only of a custodian?

(ii) Issue No. 2 - Whether Mahant Ram Narayan Ji had declared

plaintiff no. 1 as his successor Mahant and late Bhagwat Das

was made only Adhikari (working Mahants)?

(iii) Issue No. 3 - Whether said Bhagwat Das as per desire of

Ram Narayan Ji, performed the rituals of Mahantship and put

the plaintiff on the Gaddi of the Sampradaya?

(iv) Issue No. 4 - Whether respondent nos. 8, 9 and 11 had right

to sale the suit property mentioned at 'Schedule-Ka' of the

plaint and what would be the effect on the sale made by

them ?

(v) Issue No. 5 - Whether the plaintiff is owner of Schedule-"Ka"

property in the capacity of Mahant of the Sampradaya?

(vi) Issue No. 6 - Whether a relief to be declared as a Mahant

can be granted when it has not been sought for ?

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (8 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

(vii) Issue No. 7 Whether plaintiff no. 2, the temple without any

representation by next friend is entitled to get a decree and

suit is maintainable at the hands of the plaintiffs?

(viii)Issue No. 8 Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?

(ix) Issue No. 9 Whether the suit is under valued?

(x) Issue No. 10 - Whether there is dispute between parties in

respect of the said subject matter pending before the Court

in the circumstance whether the plaintiff is entitled to bring

the present suit?

(xi) Issue No. 11 - plaintiff no. 2 is not a real person in the

circumstance, he could have been made a party to the suit

or a suit could have been filed in his behalf?

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the trial

Judge wrongly placed the burden of proof on the appellants to

controvert that the suit property is not the property of Ramdwara.

In fact, the burden was on the plaintiff to establish that the suit

property was property of Ramdwara. Learned counsel submits that

the law is well settled that burden lies on the party who claims an

issue to be decided in his favour. In other words, if no evidence is

led by the parties claiming decree, the suit would fail.

A. Learned counsel next contends that it is case of the

appellants that the predecessor Mahant got some of the properties

registered as public trust, whereas, some other properties were

listed as private trust; to be used by the Sadhus of the

Sampradaya. There was a probate proceeding for authentication of

will executed by Mahant Ram Narayan Ji in favour of Bhagwat Das

Ji. The plaintiff was also a party to the probate proceeding wherein

probate was granted. The said order was not challenged,

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (9 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the properties which were

subject matter of the probate proceeding, as property of the

Ramdwara Sampradaya. Learned counsel next submits that the

plaintiff/respondent has challenged certain sale deeds as null and

void, though in some of the sale deeds, plaintiff no. 1 was a

party.

B. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that the

trial Judge has not assigned any reason while deciding issue no. 1

and has not referred to the evidences while deciding issue nos. 2

and 3.

C. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of State Bank of

India Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2023 (7) SCC 282 and

Central Board of Trustees Vs. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd.

reported in 2018 (8) SCC 443. Though law does not require

reasons in so many words, however, the aforesaid infirmity can be

cured at Appellate stage as well. On perusal of the trial Court

judgment it does not appear that the Court has not considered the

evidence on the record for coming to a particular conclusion.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the

plaintiff/respondent has proved and established that the suit

property was property of Ramdwara by producing different pattas

which are marked as Exhibit - 1 to 10. The pattas were granted in

favour of predecessor Mahants for use and development of

Ramdwara and was not personal property of the Mahant. Prior to

Bhagwatdas, no Mahant had claimed any property, in their

individual name, as their personal property after they became

Mahant. As per tradition of the Sampradaya, once a Chela is

selected as Mahant, one of the moral qualities required for

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (10 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

Mahantship was that he should have no personal lust for the

property. In the circumstance, in the history of last more than 200

years, none of the Mahants prior to Bhagwat Das ever exercised

his personal right on the property of Ramdwara, standing in his

individual name.

According to learned counsel, as per the traditions of the

Sampradaya, once a Shishya (disciple) is appointed as Mahant,

even personal property standing in his name goes to the

Sampradaya. This 200 years tradition was not controverted by the

appellants nor the Mahant who exercised personal right of creation

of Trust or of partition of the Trust property amongst the Shisyas

(disciple) had such right nor was there any precedent or Rule to

permit them to exercise right contrary to the interest of the public

Trust.

Learned counsel submits that the trial Judge has examined

all these matters and the law does not require that the reasons in

support of the judgment must be in so many words. If the

conclusion is based on the material on record, even one sentence

reason would suffice.

Learned counsel for the respondents extraneously contends

that execution of a Will or grant of probate would not create a title

in favour of the legatee unless the legator had title over the

property. Since the Mahant Mr. Ram Narayan Ji, who is said to

have executed a Will in favour of Bhagwat Das had no title to the

property, the title would not go to the legatee neither there was

any tradition nor any rule permitting any Mahant to create third

party right in respect of the property of Ramdwara.

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (11 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

8. The First point for consideration in this appeal is whether

Ramsnehi Sampradaya running since more than 200 years was a

public trust as defined under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

Sub Section (11) of Section 2 of The Rajasthan Public Trusts Act,

1959 defines public Trust as follows:-

"11. "public trust" means an express or constructive trust for either a public religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment or institution and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both."

There is pleading and evidence that the trust in question was

for public religious purposes. Sub Section (13) defines religious

endowment as follows:-

"13. "religious endowment" or "endowment" means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of a religious institution or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of the religious institution as well as the idols, if any, installed therein and any public charity associated with a festival or observance of a religious character, whether connected with a religious institutions or not, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the trustee or hereditary trustee or working trustee of such institution or to any service-holder or other employee thereof."

Sub Section (14) defines religious Institution as follows:-

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (12 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

"14. "religious institution" or "institution" means an institution for the promotion of any religion or persuasion and includes a temple, math and any religious establishment or any place of religious worship or religious instruction whether or not appurtenant to such institution."

Sub Section (16) defines temple as follows:-

"16. "temple" means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by a community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship."

Section 3 and 4 relate to validity of certain public trusts

which reads as follows:-

"3. Public Trust not to be void on ground of uncertainty. - Notwithstanding any law, custom or usage, a public trust shall not be void only on the ground that the persons or objects for the benefit of whom or which it is created are unascertained or unascertainable.

4. Public trust not void on ground that it is void for non-charitable or non-religious purposes.- A public trust created for purposes, some of which are charitable or religious and some are not, shall not be deemed to be void with respect to the charitable or religious purpose only on the ground that it is void with respect to the non- chartiable or non-religious purpose."

9. Evidently, Ramsnehi Sampradaya was/is a religious

Institution wherein anybody can get entry provided he is ready to

follow the norms and disciplines of the Sampradaya. In the case

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (13 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

on hand, there is pleading and evidence that the Sampradaya

erects temples wherein photographs of Gurus are placed and paid

respect. Evidently, Ramsnehi Sampradaya was a public trust as

defined under the law. Moreover, the averment in para 21 and 23

of the plaint refers the Sampradaya as a trust. Likewise in the

written statement vide para 1 and para 3 there is reference that

20 years back certain suit properties were declared as public Trust

whereas other properties were declared as private Trust by the

then Mahant. In para 4, it is stated that south western portion of

the suit property situated at Sunaro Ka Mohalla was declared as

public Trust by the then Mahant and north eastern portion was

declared as private trust for use of the family and Sadhus of

Sinthal Gaddi. It is also admission of the appellants that the then

Trustees had brought a suit against plaintiff no. 1 of this case for

his ejectment. The party witnesses PW.1 and DW.1 and the

documents marked as Exhibit 9A and 10A further depicts that the

suit property was Trust property. Order dated 16.3.1988 passed in

File No. 27 of 1984 by Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan

Department would to go show that in the year 1983, the

Devasthan Department conducted a survey of the public trust

which were still not registered and it was found that Kolayat

Ramsnehi Aashram was not registered as trust property though it

was a public religious trust, hence, direction was issued to include

it as a Trust property. Some strayed and untrustworthy statement

of some witnesses would not change the status of Ramsnehi

Sampradaya as public trust, hence finding of the trial Judge stands

affirmed to the aforesaid effect.

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (14 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

10. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the

suit property mentioned in Schedule-"Ka" of the plaint is property

of Ramsnehi Sampradaya. The parties are not in dispute that

Ramdham situated as Sinthal is the main seat of the Sampradaya

acquired since time immemorial, hence, it was a Trust property.

Property No. 2 Bada Ramdwara, Bikaner was separated by a

predecessor Mahant as public Trust and Private Trust. The burden

is on the appellants to prove that the Mahant had such power to

convert the long standing Sampradaya into public Trust and

private trust especially when there was no precedent in this regard

nor any Rule. The appellants failed to establish that the private

trust was validly created, rather, the creation was just to get the

cake of a public Trust cut and shared to the detriment of the Trust.

As discussed above, the pattas goes to show that this property

was also property of the Sampradaya though pattas were issued in

the name of individual Mahant. Property No. 3 Anand Ashram was

also property of the Ramsnehi Sampradaya and defendants failed

to discharge their burden that it was private property of the

Mahant acquired from his self and separate earning and not

earning of the Trust. Moreover, undisputedly it was being used as

a charity hospital of the Sampradaya. It is not disputed that

property no. 4 Rambadi, Bikaner was also of the Sampradaya and

sold long back in the year 1955 and 1969. Since the purchasers

are not party to the suit without hearing them sale deed in their

favour cannot be declared as null and void. As noticed above, Shri

Kolayat property was already declared as property of the trust by

the authorities of Devasthan Department by a judicial order.

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (15 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

11. In the matter of property no. 6, house and shop at Karanpur,

it is stated that Ram Narayan Ji had executed a Will in favour of

Bhagwatdas and probate was granted in favour of Bhagwatdas. In

the later part of the judgment, it would be discussed whether

prayer for declaration of property at item no. 6 as trust property

can be granted without specifically seeking for such relief.

Property No. 7 known as Mateli Ki Dukan was sold 50 years back.

Property No. 8 Bada Bazar, Bikaner and property no. 9 house at

Kesaripura were sold long back which is not disputed by the

parties. Since, the purchasers of these properties are not party to

the suit, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff in respect of these

properties.

12. In the circumstance, in respect of property at serial no. 4

Ram Badi, Bikaner, serial no. 7 Mateli Ki Dukan, serial no. 8 Bada

Bazar, Bikaner, Serial No. 9 House at Kesaripura, at Schedule "Ka"

no decree can be passed in absence of the purchaser as party and

having opportunity of being heard.

13. It is consistent pleading and evidence of the

plaintiff/respondent that Mahant had no right to sale or otherwise

encumber the property Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal belonging to

plaintiff no. 2. Plaintiff asserted that prior to Mahant Ram Narayan

Ji, no other Mahant had exercised such transferable right in 250

years of the history of the Sampradaya.

Whereas the defendants/appellants asserted that the Mahant

had right to transfer the property. He had right to create trust -

private or public. Moreover, the property standing in the individual

name of Mahant, acquired prior to getting Mahantship, was his

exclusive property, therefore, he could have dealt with their

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (16 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

property as has been done at certain circumstances. Further

contention is that even plaintiff no. 1 had sold some of the

property, hence, he is estopped from denying such right existing

with the Mahant.

14. Now this Court will look into the evidence of the appellants

and its witnesses. DW.1 Chhama Ram, who is party defendant has

admitted in the cross examination at page 19 that Bhagwat Das

had not purchased and blended any property to Ramdwara, rather,

properties were purchased long back. At page 20, the witness

admitted that the property which Bhagwat Das had bequeathed to

this witness, patta whereof was standing in the name of

predecessor Mahant Chaukas Ram Ji Maharaj. Evidently, the said

property was not of the testator, hence, it was not self-acquired

property capable of being bequeathed to anyone. At page 23, the

witness admitted that Bhagwat Das Ji was Shisya (disciple) of

Chaukas Ram Ji. At Page 30, the witness admitted that there was

no separate Ramdwara at Sunaro nor any separate Mahant was

there, rather, Mahant of Sinthal was Mahant of Sunaro as well. The

admission of the appellants probablizes acceptance of the case of

the plaintiff/respondent that suit properties were property of

Ramdwara. The learned trial Judge correctly held that the burden

was on the defendants/appellants to bring contrary evidence on

the record that the properties which were sold or bequeathed or

partitioned by the Shisyas (disciple) were not the property of the

trust. Simple for the reason that plaintiff no. 1 had also joined in

some sale transaction would not validate the unauthorized deal

made by the followers in respect of property of the Trust. The

evidence on record clearly suggest that Schedule-"Ka" property

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (17 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

was property of the trust. However, since some of the purchasers

of the property are not party to the suit, no decree can be passed

in respect of those properties without hearing the purchasers as

noticed above.

15. In Jankidass & Anr. Vs. Mahant Dhangir & Ors. reported

in 1990(2) Rajasthan LR 672, this Court held that the property

which belonged to the Math must have been held by the person

who was managing the Math as trustee and could have alienated

the property only for the benefit of the trust. It has been held that

if a sadhu acquires property and doesn't devote it to religious

purposes he remains absolute arbiter of the disposal of the

property but if the property has once passed to a chela by virtue

of his being a chela it is only reasonable to hold that the chela

must treat the property as religious.

In the case on hand, the property standing in the name of

Chaukas Ram Ji was succeeded by his chela Ram Narayan Ji and

Ram Narayan Ji allegedly bequeathed it to a follower. Likewise,

some of the properties sold were not individual property of the

vendor disciple, rather, was property in the name of his guru, as

such, it was a Trust property.

16. In Tara & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in

2015 AIR Rajasthan 179, this Court held that the land acquired

by Mahant will vest in Math properties and thereafter, the

chela/disciple had no authority to alienate the property of Math

and all the transfers would be null and void.

The present case is covered by the aforesaid judgment as

the property transferred either by sale or bequeath was not

by the person in whose name patta was standing, rather,

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (18 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

chela/disciple had transferred without authority as such the

bequeath and sale transaction was void ab initio.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that since

the plaintiff had not asked for declaration that he was Mahant of

the Trust. No such relief could have been granted by the trial

Judge. Learned counsel next contends that unless the purchasers

of the property are made party, the relief for declaration of entire

Schedule-"Ka" properties of the trust should not have been

allowed.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that law is

well settled that the Court can grant any relief ancillary to the

main relief, provided the same is supported by pleadings and

evidence. As has been noticed above, there is pleading and

evidence from both sides and issues were framed on whether

plaintiff no. 1 is duly appointed Mahant.

19. In the case of Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Anr. Vs.

Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi and Ors. reported in AIR 2010

SC 475, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as follows:-

"Though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however, cannot, ignoring and keeping aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner."

20. In the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal Ors. in

Civil Appeals No. 5798-5799 of 2008, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court stated in paras 9 and 10, the principle governing the field as

follows:-

"9. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (19 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the Court for its consideration.

This Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must take.

10. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (20 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief."

Thus, it is settled law that relief found on pleadings may be

granted, even if, no prayer is made, provided the defendants had

opportunity to oppose and resist such relief by pleading and

proving to the contrary.

21. In the case on hand, plaintiff pleaded that he was duly

appointed Mahant and the respondents denied the fact. The

learned trial Judge framed issues in this regard and on

consideration of the evidence, issues were decided, therefore even

if relief for declaration as Mahant was not specifically prayed for,

the court could have granted such relief after consideration of

evidence on record. Likewise, the plaintiff asserted that the

transfer made by the Mahants were without authority and

competence, therefore, transfers be declared as null and void. The

defendant/appellants asserted that such right was therewith the

Mahants. On considering the pleadings of the parties, issues were

framed by the trial Judge and relief was granted, which cannot be

faulted on this ground.

22. The plaintiff's case is consistently supported by evidence that

the Mahants of the Sampradaya neither had any authority to sale

the property of the Sampradaya nor prior to Ram Narayan Ji any

Mahant had ever exercised such right nor the "Anubhav Vani", the

book governing rules and regulations of the Sampradaya, permits

such right to the Mahant. It was burden of the defendants to

disprove the aforesaid fact by cogent evidence. Though, the

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (21 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

defendants pleaded that the Mahants could have exercised such

right in respect of their individual property but the evidence is

contrary on the record that the Mahant who executed the Will was

not having patta in his name, rather, patta of the property was in

the name of his Guru i.e. previous Mahant. Accepting the

preponderance of probability of the plaintiff's case it is held that

Ramsnehi Sampradaya was/is a public religious trust and its

Mahant had has no authority to transfer in any manner the

property of the trust, rather, he had only regulatory authority and

authority of minor expenses to facilitate the interest of the trust

and not otherwise.

23. In Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mrs. Vijaya C.

Gurshaney & Anr. reported in 2003 (7) SCC 301, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court stated that issuance of probate or letter of

administration does not confer title to the property, it merely

enables administration of the estate of the deceased. It shall

remain open to the person to dispute title even though probate or

letters of administration have been granted (Paras 8, 10).

24. The next point for consideration is whether plaintiff no.1 was

duly appointed Mahant of the Ramsnehi Sampradaya. The plaintiff

asserted that the tradition of the Sampradaya was that the

existing Mahant used to select his successor Mahant. Following the

same tradition Ram Narayan Ji selected plaintiff no. 1 as Mahant,

however, since plaintiff no. 1 was of immature age Bhagwat Das

was appointed as working Mahant with direction that on getting

age of maturity the plaintiff would be coronated as Mahant.

Plaintiff further asserted that Chadar Poshi etc. is the formal

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (22 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

function for getting the new Mahants seated on the Gaddi and this

was performed by Bhagwat Das Ji Maharaj while putting plaintiff

no. 1 on the Gaddi of the Sampradaya. Ex. 18 to 28, the

photographs of the function of coronation was produced on the

record to support that plaintiff no. 1 was made Mahant of the

Sampradaya. The plaintiff witnesses also supported the aforesaid

fact. The defendants/appellants and their witnesses were shown

the photographs and they admitted that Bhagwat Das was putting

wrapper on plaintiff no. 1 and the witnesses were also present

there but the defendants said that the same was a showy

function. Once the defendants and its witnesses accepted that the

rituals for making plaintiff no. 1 Mahant was performed, the

burden that it was just a showy ritual or ritual performed under

fear shifted on the defendant/appellants which they have failed to

discharge. DW.1 admits that in fact he was put on the seat of

Mahant and photographs of the function was also taken but he did

not produce any of the photographs, therefore, the available

evidence goes to suggest that case put forward by the

plaintiff/appellant was more probable and acceptable, therefore,

this Court is of the view that plaintiff no. 1 was/is Mahant of the

Sampradaya.

In view of the aforesaid material in favour of the plaintiff's

case, some conflicting evidence regarding date of coronation of

plaintiff no. 1 losses significance especially when dates under

different calendars were referred to by the witnesses.

25. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the

plaintiff's case is that the suit property is of plaintiff no. 2

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (23 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal. Ramdham Mandir, Sinthal is not

represented by anyone, hence, no decree can be passed in favour

of plaintiff no. 2 regarding the suit property.

26. Though, it is a fact that Ramdham Mandir is not separately

represented by a natural person, rather, is represented indirectly

by plaintiff no. 1. Section 2(9) of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act,

1959 defines the term "person having interest" as followed:

"2(9) "person having interest" or any expression signifying a person having interest in a public trust includes-

(a) in the case of a temple, a person who is entitled to attend or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple or who is entitled to partaking or is in the habit of partaking in the distribution of gifts thereof;

(b) in the case of a math, a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuassion to which the math belongs;

(c) in the case of a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 (Rajasthan Act 28 of 1958) or under any other analogous law in force in any part of the State, any member of such society; and

(d) in the case of any other public trust, any beneficiary."

Evidently, plaintiff no. 1 had interest in respect of the trust

property and main relief he has sought for is declaration that the

suit property is of Ramsnehi Sampradaya and Mahant of the

Sampradaya had no transferable right in respect of the property of

the Sampradaya, therefore, interest of plaintiff no. 2 is properly

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (24 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

represented by plaintiff no. 1. The impugned judgment cannot be

faulted on this ground.

27. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that

Devasthan Department under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act,

1959 was a necessary party as the suit property relates to a Trust

and in absence of Devasthan Department the suit was bad for non

joinder of necessary party. The record reveals that, after the

parties failed to reach to an amicable settlement, by order dated

26.11.2015, the Court issued notice to the Assistant

Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner alongwith a copy

of the memo of appeal and on appearance of the Devasthan

Department by order dated 1.2.2016 formed a committee

consisting of Assistant Collector (ADM-1), Bikaner and Assistant

Commissioner, Devasthan Department under supervision of

District Collector with certain directions to take over management

and possession of the suit property, maintain records of income

and place the same quarterly before this Court. The Assistant

Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner was directed to

remain personally present before the Court on all dates of hearing

before this Court. Even on the date of hearing, the counsel for

Devasthan Department was present before the Court and he

simply submitted that after adjudication of dispute between the

parties, the Devasthan Department would proceed according to

law and direction of the Court. Moreover, no relief has been sought

for against Devasthan Department. In the circumstance,

Devasthan Department was a formal party.

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (25 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

Moreover, the Devasthan Department has already been

heard, therefore, the trial Court judgment cannot be faulted on

this ground also.

28. Learned counsel for the appellants next contends that the

relief for declaration of sale deeds and probate as void is barred

by limitation.

29. Since the transferee of the suit property had no transferable

right, the transactions entered into by them was void ab-initio. For

such declaration, the suit could have been filed on knowledge of

the fact.

30. Moreover, Section 10 of the Limitation Act clearly stipulates

that no limitation would apply when the property relates to a Trust

etc., the provision is being reproduced below:-

"Section 10. Suits against trustees and their representatives.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act, no suit against a person in whom property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose, or against his legal representatives or assigns (not being assigns for valuable consideration), for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property, or the proceeds thereof, or for an account of such property or proceeds, shall be barred by any length of time.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section any property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be property vested in trust for a specific purpose and the manager of the property shall be deemed to be the trustee thereof."

[2025:RJ-JD:15405] (26 of 27) [CFA-336/2008]

The aforesaid provision was considered in Mohammad Shah

Vs. Fasihuddin Ansari & Ors. reported in 1956 AIR (SC) 713,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no limitation for a

suit in respect of property in possession of Mutawalli/trustee of the

Wakf.

In view of the aforesaid provisions, this Court does not find

any merit in the aforesaid submission that prayer of the plaintiff

was barred by limitation.

31. To conclude, it is well established that Ramsnehi Sampradaya

is a public religious trust. Its Mahant had/has no transferable right

in respect of the property of the Trust. Mahant could have