9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the scheme settled by the Court under Section 92, Civil P.C. in 1933. 2. Claim by the plaintiffs to manage and control the temple and its properties. 3. Request by the plaintiffs to have the scheme varied or over-ridden altogether. 4. Interpretation of Section 92, Civil P.C. and its application in the case. 5. Precedents and authorities supporting the view taken by the court. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves a dispute over the validity of a scheme settled by the Court in 1933 for the administration of a temple, known as the Alakhnath Mahadeo Temple, in Bareilly. The plaintiffs claimed a long history of the devolution of the mahantship of the temple and sought a declaration that they had the right to manage and control the temple and its properties. However, the defendant-respondents were appointed as trustees by the Court under the scheme settled in 1933. 2. The plaintiffs essentially sought to have the scheme settled by the Court in 1933 varied or over-ridden altogether, aiming to substitute the current trustees with themselves. The Court noted that the trust was established for public religious purposes, and the scheme was legally proper under Section 92, Civil P.C. The plaintiffs' claim was seen as an attempt to challenge the existing scheme and have a fresh set of trustees appointed, which was not permissible under the law. 3. The Court interpreted Section 92, Civil P.C., which restricts suits related to trusts for religious or charitable purposes unless in conformity with its provisions. The plaintiffs' claim to have the scheme varied or over-ridden was considered inconsistent with the legal framework provided by Section 92. The Court emphasized the importance of following the proper legal procedures to challenge or modify a scheme settled under this section. 4. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the binding nature of schemes framed under Section 92, Civil P.C. It referenced a case from the Madras Court where it was held that a scheme settled under this section was binding on all parties, including those who might have claimed hereditary trusteeship. The Court concluded that the relief sought by the plaintiffs was inconsistent with the settled scheme, and they were required to follow the appropriate legal procedures to assert their rights. 5. Based on the interpretation of the law and precedents, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the plaintiffs could not establish the relief they sought in the suit. The Court emphasized that challenging a scheme settled under Section 92 required following the proper legal mechanisms and could not be done in a separate court through claims hostile to the existing scheme. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the validity of the scheme settled by the Court in 1933.
|
