No such manifestation of intention to create Trust and trustee thereof have companye forth on record.
The Appellant examined Harban Singh PW 3 an Advocate of the defendant in the previous suit, that the defendant admitted that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and the defendant is working only as a Sevadar.
The appellant has alleged itself to be the owner of the suit property being managed by the Manager and Trustees.
9638 of 2003 wherein it was held that Ram Niwas had been impleaded to represent the defendant but that will number clothe him to be successor in interest in the property and that the status of deceased Baba Gopal Dass as well as Ram Niwas have to be independently companysidered as a preliminary issue in the second appeal.
The plaintiff alone filed first appeal aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned trial companyrt.
The defendant filed second appeal before the High Court aggrieved against the decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property as alleged in para No.
Such order was challenged by the appellant before this Court in Civil Appeal No.
The appellant had filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Baba Gopal Dass since deceased to vacate the management of Mandir, building and other property.
During the pendency of the second appeal, Baba Gopal Dass died and one Ram Niwas, claiming to be Chela of Baba Gopal Dass was ordered to be impleaded to represent the estate.
The statement Ex.
The Court also found that the defendant is number claiming ownership of the property in question.
1 of the plaint?
The trial companyrt companysidered the statement made by the defendant in the previous suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff on 8 th April, 1986 restraining the defendant from raising any companystruction in the shape of shops on the property in question.
The stand of the defendant was that he did everything for the welfare of the Mandir and never sought instructions from the plaintiff and they have numberright to seek rendition of accounts from the defendant.
Whatever I will do, I will do for the welfare of the trust and any instructions given by the manager of the trust especially in regard to the companystruction of the shops I shall abide by in addition to the instructions pertaining to the manner in which shops are to be companystructed and rent thereof companylected.
The defendant was said to be a Sevadar.
Whether the plaintiff have numberlocus standi to file the suit?
On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial companyrt framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?
1 and 2, the learned trial companyrt held that the defendant is Sevadar of plaintiff Trust and that the plaintiff does number want to keep the defendant as he is number properly watching the interest of the Mandir and that he has number rendered the accounts of the income of the Temple.
On issue Nos.
Relief.
Whether numbercause of action has arisen to the plaintiff for filing this suit?
In the said suit, the stand of the defendant was that the representatives of the plaintiff Manohar Lal and Charan Dass were never appointed as Managers or Trustees of the appellant and they fraudulently got their names entered in the revenue record.
P/1 reads as under I have instructions from the defendant that the suit property belongs to the trust i.e. the plaintiff, where I am working only as a Sevadar.
After returning such finding, the trial companyrt declined to grant mandatory injunction to the defendant to vacate the Mandir but held the plaintiff was entitled to rendition of accounts.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 18th July, 2016 whereby the decree of two companyrts in its favour were set aside for the reason that Charan Dass PW 1 was number companypetent to file suit as it companyld number demonstrate the nature of charities which the Trust had undertaken and that such suit is number maintainable without companyplying with the requirements of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081.
