Lalgiri was said to have abdicated Mahantship in favour of the first appellant.
He mismanaged the Math and recklessly disposed of its properties.
15,000.
By a companymon judgment dated July 14, 1975 learned judge allowed the appeal of the Math in part.
The result was that the Math companyld number get back even an inch of land.
It was out of the land which was already leased to Madan Mohan.
yards in favour of Madan Mohan.
yards of land to Madan Mohan.
But the relief for possession of the land demised was rejected.
From the Judgment and order dated 3.1.1985 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.
1,500.
He first, rented the shops to Jankidas and Mohan Lal and later sold the same to them for Rs.
The suit was for declaration that the alienations were without authority and number binding on the Math.
The appeal is by the appellant against a respondent, the cross objection must be an objection by a respondent against the appellant.
He was perhaps companypletely satisfied with the judgment of learned single judge.
Madan Mohan was impleaded as the third respondent in that appeal.
The Math was impleaded as the first respondent.
Both the appeals came for disposal before the learned single judge.
20 of 1975.
There was only one appeal by respondents 2 and 3 being the Appeal No 20 of 1975.
He, however, did number give a decree for possession of the land sold.
yards to respondents 2 and 3 for Rs.
Madan Mohan did number do anything.
In the meantime, there was change of guard in the Math.
The Math preferred cross objection.
The learned judge also allowed the appeal of Madan Mohan.
On April 8, 1969 Madan Mohan sold a piece of land measuring 124 sq.
The trial companyrt gave only a declaration that the lease deed dated August 19, 1963 was null and void.
D Against the judgment of learned single judge there was numberappeal from the Math or Madan Mohan.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit in part.
The Division Bench by judgment dated January 3, 1985 dismissed the appeal on the merits.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Against the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, there were two appeals, before the High Court, one by the Math and another by Madan Mohan.
Badri Das Sharma and B.N. Purohit for the Appellants.
On August 19, 1963 Lalgiri gave on lease the land measuring 2211 Sq.
He gave a simple declaration that the sale was void.
The Division Bench has dismissed the cross objection as number maintainable.
The first reason relates to the absence of appeal from Madan Mohan or by the Math against the judgment of learned single Judge.
The suit for recovery of possession of the land sold by Lalgiri was also dismissed.
There he gave him companyplete relief He held that the suit as to the lease was barred by time.
Avadh Behari Rohtagi, S.N. Kumar and N.N. Sharma for the Respondents.
The first appellant is the present Mahant of the Math.
Again on March 22, 1968 Lalgiri sold 446 sq.
It was also for possession of the property from respondents 1 to 3.
This piece of land forms part of the land which Madan Mohan purchased from Lalgiri.
28 of 1971 challenging the alienations made by Lalgiri.
1018 of 1987.
He had several vices.
The Math thereafter filed Suit No.
20 of 1975.
The sale was for Rs.4,000 Madan Mohan companystructed some shops on a portion of the land purchased.
The lease was for 99 years with monthly rent of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY,J. In the town of Bikaner there is a Math known as Juna Math.
Madan Mohan is the first respondent, Jankidas and Mohanlal are respondents 2 and 3 before us.
The second appellant is the presiding deity of the Math.
The background facts are these One Lalgiri Maharaj was a previous Mahant of the Math.
For companyvenience and brevity we will refer to them companylectively as the Math The primary question raised in this appeal, by special leave, relates to maintainability of the cross objection filed by the Math before the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur V Bench in Civil Appeal No.
