RSA No. 922 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 922 of 2008 Date of decision: September 1,2008 Madan Gopal Mehta & others ..Appellants. Versus Mandir Shivala Jagan Nath Shahbad and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the appellants. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendants against the concurrent findings of the courts below whereby the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondents has been decreed with costs. The plaintiff-respondents have filed the present suit alleging that Mandir Shivala Jagan Nath is situated at Karta Chowk, Shahabad and plaintiff No. 2 is its Incharge and sole Manager of Mandir/ plaintiff No.1 along with its properties. Defendant No.1 colluded with other defendants in order to grab the property of the Mandir and in order to achieve their illegal designs fabricated a trust deed No.70 dated 22.4.1997 regarding the property of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, defendants have no right to interfere in the interest of the plaintiffs and its properties. On these allegations, the plaintiffs have prayed for declaration to the effect that the trust deed bearing No.70 dated 22.4.1997 executed by defendant No.1 under the name and style of Mandir Shivala Jagan Nath trust is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of plaintiffs and the defendants be restrained from interfering in the management of the suit property and from claiming any right over the same and from alienating, creating any charge on the basis of trust deed No.70 dated 22.4.1997. The trial Court found that Madan Gopal Mehta, appellant had no RSA No. 922 of 2008 2 right to create the trust of the Mandir and its property, as the resolution and proceedings do not disclose what right he has to create a trust of Mandir. The trial Court also found that plaintiff No.2 is the Incharge/Manager of plaintiff No.1 i.e., Mandir and in view of these findings, the suit of the plaintiff/respondents was decreed. On appeal, the lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants vide its judgment and decree dated 31.10.2007. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court found that the conclusion of the trial Court to the effect that trust deed dated 22.4.1997 executed by defendant No.1 is illegal and null and void. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decrees of the courts below, the appellants have filed this second appeal. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the findings of the courts below are illegal, as the Trust has been created for management of the Mandir, the income and property of which is being misappropriated by the plaintiff/respondent No.2 and the public at large has every right to take over the religious property for its management. The counsel for the appellant has raised the following substantial question of law:- “ Whether the temple could be taken over by Charitable Trust formed by different members of the public for its proper management? “ I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and find no ground to interfere in the well-reasoned judgment and decree of the courts below. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have given a pure finding of fact that the Mandir and its property is being managed by the plaintiff respondent No.2. It has also been found by the courts below that the appellant has no right to create a trust for the management of the property of the Mandir. The question of law as framed by the counsel for the appellant does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is a case filed by the plaintiff for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction wherein it has been found that the appellants have no right to create a trust for the management of the Mandir. RSA No. 922 of 2008 3 Once the appellant has no right to create a trust for the management of the respondent-Mandir, they cannot take over the religious property in this manner. No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. No merit. Dismissed. September 1 , 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE