Case: Avadh Kishore Das Vs. Ram Gopal and Others

It cannot be said that the defendant had inadvertently affirmed the correctness of the admission/declaration made in the aforesaid Will by the deceased Mahant. It was a conscious admission. The defendant himself repeatedly admitted this position with regard to the ownership of the land being exclusively of the idol, Thakurji Maharaj, in the applications filed for receiving annuity under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952, which was granted to the idol, in respect of the Trust property.25. Exhibit 13 is a copy of an application, dated July 25, 1956 filed by the appellant on behalf of Shri Ram Jankiji Maharaj, installed in the temple of village Bahawalpura. In this application, he represented himself that this property of the temple was under the management of the applicant as a Mahant. This application was filed by the appellant before the Compensation Officer, Tehsil Konch, for grant of the compensation in the shape of annuity, in respect of the property of the Trust. The idol of Shri Ram Janki installed in the temple at village Bahawalpura is mentioned as the applicant. This application bears the verification and signature of the appellant, himself.26. Exhibit 12 is another application of a similar nature made by the appellant before the Compensation Officer, on July 18, 1957, for receiving the annuity.27. Exhibit 11 is an affidavit, dated October 14, 1958, filed by the appellant before the Rehabilitation Grant Officer, Konch. In this affidavit, the appellant solemnly affirmed that the income of the Muafi property of the temple had been expended and shall, in future, be expended towards Bhog, Puja and functions held on the occasion of festivals and, also, towards the repairs of the temple.28. Exhibit 15 is a copy of the order, dated August 16, 1955, passed by the Compensation Officer. In this order, it is stated that the Zamindari property was in the name of Shri Ram Jankiji Maharaj installed in the temple of village Bahawalpura and the Manager recorded in the Khewat was Avadh Kishore Das (defendant-appellant), Chela of Mahant Raghubir Das. The deity, Shri Ram Jankiji is recorded as intermediary in the Khewat of 1849 Fasli. The Compensation Officer ordered that an annuity of Rs. 596/6 be paid to the appellant as Manager of the aforesaid idol.29. Then, there is another document (Ex. 14). It is an agreement, dated August 16, 1955, between the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Shri Ram Jankiji Maharaj Wakf Trust. This agreement was signed by the appellant, himself, on behalf of the aforesaid Wakf Trust. By this document, the appellant had made a representation to the State Government that the Trust was in urgent need of funds for carrying out the performances of the Wakf Trust or endowment. He further requested that pending determination of compensation and annuity, an amount of Rs. 596/6 be advanced to the grantee on the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement. The State Government had agreed to advance this loan on the terms contained in the agreement.30. In the fact of this evidence reinforced by the oral evidence on the record, the learned Judge of the High Court concluded that the Math and the temple in this case are a public religious Trust and not the personal property of the defendant. We do not find any reason to take a different view.31. Mr. Goyal cited certain observations of the Judicial Committee in Babu Bhagwan Din v. Gir Har Saroop (AIR 1940 PC 7 ) in support of his contention that the mere fact that the property descended from Guru to Chela and that there was a grant from the then Rulers from time to time for the temple, is not sufficient to show that it was a public endowment. This is stated only to be rejected. The facts of that case were entirely different. The points of distinction have been fully brought out by the High Court and we do not intend to burden this judgment by a repetition of the same.32. In the alternative, Mr. Goyal tried to advance a new plea which was never taken by the defendant in his pleadings or at the time of arguments in the courts below. The argument is that if it was assumed that Mahant Raghubir Das had no right to gift the property to the appellant, the latter would then be treated a trespasser over the same and as no suit for his ejectment was filed under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, within three years of his coming into possession in 1954, he became a Sirdar under Section 210 of that Act. Thereafter, Raghubir Das acquired the Bhumidhari rights in the suit land under Section 18 of that Act in his own right and there is nothing to show that the temple or the idol got such rights. The point sought to be made out is that Bhumidhari rights acquired by the defendant were new statutory rights and the old proprietary rights had extinguished and become vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section 6 of the said Act, with effect from the date of vesting (i.e. July 1, 1952).33. An application, dated March 14, 1969, (C.M.P. No. 1437 of 1969) has also been made in this Court by the appellant for taking additional grounds. This application has been stoutly opposed by Shri R. K. Garg, counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that this is not a pure question of law, but one depending on evidence. No extract from the revenue records to show that Bhumidhari rights were granted not to the idol or the temple as a juristic person, but to the appellant personally.34. It appears to us that this plea cannot be entertained at this belated stage. It is not even faintly adumbrated in the written statement of the defendant, nor was it agitated at any stage before the courts below. It is not a pure question or law. We, therefore, decline to go into it.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The argument is that if it was assumed that Mahant Raghubir Das had no right to gift the property to the appellant, the latter would then be treated a trespasser over the same and as no suit for his ejectment was filed under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, within three years of his coming into possession in 1954, he became a Sirdar under Section 210 of that Act. Thereafter, Raghubir Das acquired the Bhumidhari rights in the suit land under Section 18 of that Act in his own right and there is nothing to show that the temple or the idol got such rights. The point sought to be made out is that Bhumidhari rights acquired by the defendant were new statutory rights and the old proprietary rights had extinguished and become vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section 6 of the said Act, with effect from the date of vesting (i.e. July 1, 1952).33. An application, dated March 14, 1969, (C.M.P. No. 1437 of 1969) has also been made in this Court by the appellant for taking additional grounds. This application has been stoutly opposed by Shri R. K. Garg, counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that this is not a pure question of law, but one depending on evidence. No extract from the revenue records to show that Bhumidhari rights were granted not to the idol or the temple as a juristic person, but to the appellant personally.34. It appears to us that this plea cannot be entertained at this belated stage. It is not even faintly adumbrated in the written statement of the defendant, nor was it agitated at any stage before the courts below. It is not a pure question or law. We, therefore, decline to go into it.