The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rajesh Giri vs Subhash Mittal & Ors. consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that private temple open to the public on certain festive occasions would not convert the same into a public temple.
Facts
This petition under Article 227 assailed the order whereby the learned ADJ rejected the application filed by the petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit, for a decree on admissions under O12R6 CPC.
The petitioner claimed to be a worshipper of an idol of Shri Radha Krishna Ji Maharaj (“the Idol”) on the suit property. The plaint filed by the petitioner asserted that the suit property had been bequeathed by one Nikko Bibi vide registered will in the name of God. It was also averred, that Nikko Bibi had earlier executed a will in favour of one person which stood cancelled with the execution of another will. The cancelled will bequeathed the suit property to two trustees, based on the said bequest, mortgaged the suit property to one Anaro Devi. The said mortgages were challenged by one trustee by way of a civil suit, seeking a declaration that the mortgage of the property was bad as it was barred by the will.
Procedural History
This Court held that, though the trustees were, in terms of the will, entitled to reside in the suit property, they were prohibited from alienating it. Based on the title derived, the plaint alleged that the respondents had, in collusion with each other, executed relinquishment deed and MoU, based on which the suit property was transferred to Respondents 3 and 5 via sale deed. Respondents 1 and 2 then purchased the property from Respondents 3 and 5 and converted the temple into a commercial complex. Alleging that all these transactions were in the teeth of the covenants of the will, to which this Court had accorded its imprimatur, the application sought a declaration that the Sale Deed whereunder the suit property was transferred to Respondents 3 and 5 and the sale deed whereby Respondents 3 and 5 further transferred the suit property to Respondents 1 and 2, were null and void. Additionally, the plaint also sought, by way of mandatory injunction, a direction to the respondents to restore the Idol of Radha Krishna Ji Maharaj and re-convert the suit property into a temple.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that Respondents 1 and 2 cannot be bound by the judgment whether applying the principle of issue estoppel or otherwise. Respondents 3 and 5, too, were not parties to the said decision when it was rendered and can also not, therefore, be bound by the said decision by applying the principle of issue estoppel. It opined that there being no admission, anywhere in the pleadings, by any of the respondents, that they were bound by the judgment or that they were even aware of the said decision, the learned ADJ could not hold, while adjudicating the petitioner’s application under O12R6 CPC, that the respondents were bound by the said decision applying the principle of issue estoppel.
It concurred with the submission made on behalf of Respondent 4 that a private temple may also be open to the public on certain festive occasions. That would not convert the temple into a public temple to empower a worshipper of a temple to maintain a suit with respect to titular rights in respect of the temple.
It noted that there was, therefore, no admission on the part of the respondents either with respect to the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the suit or with respect to the both the wills, as contended in the plaint.
Relying on various decisions of the Apex Court, no case existed for passing of a decree on admissions in favour of the petitioner. Relying on Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, it was reiterated that a decree on admissions is not a matter of right. The use of the expression “may” in O12R6 was held by the Supreme Court to confer discretion on the court, in the matter of passing a decree on admission and a discretionary order cannot, classically, constitute the basis for a challenge under Article 227. The limited parameters of Article 227 were looked into, while relying on a plethora of judgments.
Judgment
This Court concluded that it is not expected, while exercising Article 227 jurisdiction, to sit in appeal over the orders of the Courts below under challenge, especially where the orders are discretionary in nature. The scope of interference is heavily circumscribed. Additionally, as the impugned order is discretionary in nature, and O12R6 is not a matter of right, this petition under Article 227 cannot sustain even on that score. So, this petition was dismissed in limine.
Case: Rajesh Giri vs Subhash Mittal & Ors.
Citation: CM(M) 1004/2022 & CM APPL. 41644/2022
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar
Decided on: 21st September 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
