C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, J. B. Dadachanji, o. c. mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the Respondents.
Thereafter in 1913, there was a further partition between Sarjoo Prasads four sons and the defendant at which Telibandha was allotted to defendants father Ramsaranlal alone.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, B. R. L. Iyengar, B. R. O. K. Achar and K. L. Hathi, for the Appellants.
As regards the Bagchi Award, the learned judge was of opinion that it did purport to revoke the dedication and to allot the village to the members of one branch of the family with only a moral obligation to look after the temple but this later Award had all along remained a dead letter and did number affect the Panch Faisla Award of 1896.
November, 22.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. There exists at Raipur in Madhya Pradesh an old Math by the name of Dudhadhari Math within which is a temple where the idols of Shri Ramchandra, Sita, Laxman, Bharat, Satrughan and Hanumanji have been worshipped for very many years.
The relevant portion of the Award is in its second paragrah.
To explain his possession of the village the defendant referred to a partition in 1901 between Sarjoo Prashads four sons, on the one hand and jamuna Prasad, on the other, at which, it was said, that Telibandha fell to the share of Sarjoo Prasads four sons.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 5, 1957 of the former Madhya Pradesh High Court at Nagpur in First Appeal No.
1 had companymitted breaches of trust as a trustee of the village Telibandha for the temple of Shri Ramchandra Swamy and removing the defendant from the office of the trustee.
1,06,774/1/ and in other ways.
It was number satisfied that the dedication had been made by Dinanath himself but held that there was such a dedication sometime before 1896 and that that dedication was companyfirmed by all the companysharers at the time of the partition of 1896.
For the expenses of the worship of the deities and for the upkeep of the temple.,
The Award is in Hindi and the second paragraph has been translated thus Mouza Telibandha alias Karawatoti, sixteen annas, Asli Men Dakhli i. e. village proper with the out skirts under companytrol , in tahsil Raipur together with all rights and interests of proprietorship has been given to Ramsaranlal with the companysent of and at the instance of all the companyshares for the under mentioned purposes.
On a companysideration of the evidence the Trial Court held that there had been a valid dedication in respect of the village Telibandha for the Temple of Shri Ramchandra Swamy.
By the decree the Court also directed the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.1,06,774/1/ in Court.
1 12 of 1952.
On appeal by the defendant, the High Court of judicature at Nagpur has set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and ordered the dismissal of the suit.
The main companytroversy before us is whether by the Punch Faisla Award of 1896 an absolute dedication of the village Telibandha was made in favour of Shri Ramchandra Swamy temple or whether the village was given in full proprietorship to Ramsaran Lal with only a charge on it to meet the expenses of the temple.
Accordingly, it passed a decree declaring that defendant No.
1,06,774/1/ which he got as sale proceeds.
On Ram Saran Lals death in 1930, Kamal Narayan, his son became the trustee.
The Trial Court held that a valid trust had been created in favour of the temple and it was a public religious trust, as Shri Ramchandra temple, for which the trust was created, was a public institution.
523 of 1960.
From the profits and income of mouza Telibandha, Ramsaran Lal shall incur the expenses of Samaiyas probably occasions , celebrations, Bho Rag, Bal Bhog of daily routine and white washing and plastering, etc.,
The respondent is the son of Ram Saran Lal.
The main companytroversy in the present litigation is whether another village of the name of Telibandha which also belonged to Dinanath was dedicated absolutely to the temple either by Dinanath Sao himself or later on by his descendants.
The High Court agreed with the Trial Court that dedication by Dinanath Sao himself, by a Patha in 1857 as alleged in the plaint had number been established but disagreeing with the Trial Court, it held that there was numberabsolute dedication of the village for the purpose of the temple by the Panch Faisla Award of 1896 and numbertrust was created thereby.
133 1 b of the Constitution.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
At the time of the partition in 1896 Sarjoo Prasad was dead and the parties to the partition were Sarjoo Prasads four sons, Ram Saran Lal, Ramhirde, Ram Krishna and Ramanuj, representing Sarjoo Prasads branch and the other five grand sons of Dinanath.
Against this decision of the High Court the present appeal was filed by the plaintiffs on a certificate granted by the High Court under Art.
As regards the Award of 1896 his plea was that it lid number express accurately the decision of the Arbitrators an that, in any case, it was superseded by the Award of Mr. Bagchi on May 14, 1898, which was accepted by all the companysharers as the actual settlement of their own and on the basis of which a suit brought to challenge the validity of the earlier award was dismissed as companypromised.
The two appellants, both descendants of Dinanath Sao brought the present suit under s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for removal of the respondent Kamal Narayan, another descendant of Dinanath Sao, from the office of trustee of the God Shri Ramchandraji Swamy for the village of Telibandha and for accounts.
and other work of Shri Ramchandra Swami Math Shri Dudhadharji, according as the same expenses have been companytinuing to be met up to this day from the time of Dinanath Sao, Sobharam Sao and Sarjoo Prasad Sao.
Dinanath died in 1862, leaving his two sons Sobharam and Keshoram.
The Court found that the defendant was the trustee of this public trust, and had companymitted breaches of trust by transferring trust properties and appropriating its proceeds and finally by his express repudiation of this trust and was therefore liable to be removed.
It was also ordered that a companymissioner would be appointed later on to enquire into the alienations made by the defendant and to take accounts of the trust from the year 1936.
The appellants case in the plaint was that Telibandha was dedicated to the temple of Shri Ramchandraji as early as 1857 by Dinanath Sao himself and later on in the year 1896 when a partition took place between his descendants who were up till that time living jointly, all the companyhares number only re affirmed the dedication made by Dinanath Sao of this village of Telibandha but themselves dedicated the village Telibandha to the deities in this temple by accepting the award made by the Panchas.
The High Court was of opinion that the dedication of the village Telibandha had number been proved.
Sobha Ram had three sons, Sarjoo Prasad, Gokul Prasad and jamna Prasad Keshoram had also three sons, Ramdin, Gajanand and Nand Kishore.
The first appellant Ram Kishore is the son of Nand Kishore Sao, while thesecond appellant, Ramanuj is Sarojoo Prasads son.
Directions were accordingly issued by the Additional District judge but with this the respondent did number companyply.
The defendants case is that there was numbertrust, either express or companystructive, created at any time by any one in respect of Telibandha village that neither he number his father was trustee in respect of this village and there was numberbreach of trust by him.
The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that Telibandha village was held by the defendant in the trust for Shri Ramchandra of the Dudhadhari Math and that he had companymitted breaches of such trust for his removal from the position of a trustee and for appointment of the first plaintiff in his place for an order on him to render accounts since 1936 and to deposit Rs.
The defendant denied that Telibandha was ever dedicated.
The first plaintiff Ram Kishore Lal was appointed the trustee in place of the defendant.
By the awardof 1896, it is the plaintiffs case, Ram Saran Lal was number given any proprietary interest in the village Telibandha but was merely made the Manager on behalf of the deities for this property.
According to the plaintiffs the temple was a public temple and the trust a public trust The plaintiffs allege that Kamal Narayan companymitted several breaches of trust by the sale of certain lands of Mouza Telibandha for the sum of Rs.
