# Ashok Raghav v. Sri Krishna Janam Sewa Sansthan

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1300
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-17
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 11338 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-raghav-v-sri-krishna-janam-sewa-sansthan-52745
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Hare Ram

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether Secretary of society did not have
authority to institute and carry on the suit

(ii) Whether the trust/society is not a public
religious institution, hence, Act No. 13 of 1972 is
applicable.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227;The Societies Registration Act, 1860Section
;
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act-1972-Section 2(bb), 3(r),
3(s)- After sub-section (3) of Section 2
was omitted by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995
which came into effect from 26.09.1994
and Section 2(bb) having been inserted in
Section 2 of the Act of 1972 which lays
down exemption from the operation of Act
of 1972, it is thus clear that any building
belonging to or vested in public charitable
or public religious institution, the Act of
1972 was not applicable- Once it is clear
that both trust and society formed for the
benefit of public at large, and had a
character
of
charitable
and
religious
11 All. Ashok Raghav Vs. Sri Krishna Janam Sewa Sansthan
1301
institution, the operation of the Act
became exempted in view of Section
2(bb)- Petitions dismissed.
Held-
(i) The authority acting as Secretary of the
society has never been under challenge by any
of the trustee or members of society, the
question raised by tenant/petitioner is of no
consequence

(ii) As the trust was created not for the benefit
of a family or a particular person but for the
benefit of the Hindus throughout the world,
thus, it can be safely called as public charitable
and religious institution covered under Section
2(bb) of the Act of 1972.(Para 32, 34, 36 &
42)

Petitions dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Nand Kishore Gosaeen and others vs. State of
U. P. and others, 1999 (4) AWC 3085;

List of Acts
The
Constitution
of
India,
1950;The
Societies Registration Act, 1860; The Uttar
Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act-1972

List of Keywords
Act 13 of 1972 not applicable; Section 2(bb);
Public charitable or public religious institution;
Authority acting as Secretary; Never been under
challenge by any of the trustee or members of
society

Case Arising From
(i) Judgment and order dated 31.08.2012
passed by Judge Small Cause Court/ Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Mathura in S.C.C. Suit No. 26
of 2001 and order dated 30.08.2025 passed by
Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura
in S.C.C. Revision No. 37 of 2012.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 12.03.2015
passed by Additional District Judge,Court No. 8,
Mathura

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner : P.N. Saxena, R.P. Mishra
Counsel for Respondents : Ashutosh Srivastava,
Hare Ram

## Text

1300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permission/necessity to file such objections
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the
objections were without any authority
under the law. Considering the significance
of the said letters, we are also inclined to
accept and admit the same on record of
these appeals, as the Commercial Court did
not even grant time to the appellants to cure
deficiency, if any. The application for
additional evidence, accordingly, stands
allowed.

21. As far as submissions made by
learned counsel for the respondents that
appellants have a weak case and there is no
chance of their success, we are not inclined to
make any observation in this regard as the
Commercial Court has not examined merits
of the objections under Section 34 of the Act,
1996.

22. We are, therefore, satisfied that the
Commercial Court has erred in passing the
orders impugned and are inclined to set aside
the same and remit the matter back to the
Commercial Court for deciding all the
objections on merits.

23. Consequently, all the appeals are
allowed.

24. The orders dated 04.07.2025,
10.06.2025 and 10.06.2025 passed by the
Commercial Court, Prayagraj respectively in
Arbitration Cases No. 20 of 2023, 14 of 2023
and 15 of 2023 are hereby set aside.

25. Arbitration Cases No. 20 of 2023, 14
of 2023 and 15 of 2023 are restored to their
original number and status and the same shall
be decided on merits by the Commercial
Court after hearing the parties concerned
within a period of four months from the date
of production of certified/authentic copy of
this order before it.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1300
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 11338 of 2025
Connected with Other Cases

Ashok Raghav ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Krishna Janam Sewa Sansthan
 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.K. Mishra, Ashish Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Hare Ram

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether Secretary of society did not have
authority to institute and carry on the suit

(ii) Whether the trust/society is not a public
religious institution, hence, Act No. 13 of 1972 is
applicable.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227;The Societies Registration Act, 1860Section
;
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act-1972-Section 2(bb), 3(r),
3(s)- After sub-section (3) of Section 2
was omitted by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995
which came into effect from 26.09.1994
and Section 2(bb) having been inserted in
Section 2 of the Act of 1972 which lays
down exemption from the operation of Act
of 1972, it is thus clear that any building
belonging to or vested in public charitable
or public religious institution, the Act of
1972 was not applicable- Once it is clear
that both trust and society formed for the
benefit of public at large, and had a
character
of
charitable
and
religious
11 All. Ashok Raghav Vs. Sri Krishna Janam Sewa Sansthan
1301
institution, the operation of the Act
became exempted in view of Section
2(bb)- Petitions dismissed.
Held-
(i) The authority acting as Secretary of the
society has never been under challenge by any
of the trustee or members of society, the
question raised by tenant/petitioner is of no
consequence

(ii) As the trust was created not for the benefit
of a family or a particular person but for the
benefit of the Hindus throughout the world,
thus, it can be safely called as public charitable
and religious institution covered under Section
2(bb) of the Act of 1972.(Para 32, 34, 36 &
42)

Petitions dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited
Nand Kishore Gosaeen and others vs. State of
U. P. and others, 1999 (4) AWC 3085;

List of Acts
The
Constitution
of
India,
1950;The
Societies Registration Act, 1860; The Uttar
Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act-1972

List of Keywords
Act 13 of 1972 not applicable; Section 2(bb);
Public charitable or public religious institution;
Authority acting as Secretary; Never been under
challenge by any of the trustee or members of
society

Case Arising From
(i) Judgment and order dated 31.08.2012
passed by Judge Small Cause Court/ Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Mathura in S.C.C. Suit No. 26
of 2001 and order dated 30.08.2025 passed by
Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Mathura
in S.C.C. Revision No. 37 of 2012.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 12.03.2015
passed by Additional District Judge,Court No. 8,
Mathura

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner : P.N. Saxena, R.P. Mishra
Counsel for Respondents : Ashutosh Srivastava,
Hare Ram
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. These three connected writ petitions
have been filed under Article 227 of
Constitution of India assailing the order
passed
by
court
below
in
eviction
proceeding
initiated
by
plaintiffrespondent.

2. Matters under Article 227 No.
11338 of 2025 has been filed questioning
the legality of judgment and order dated
31.08.2012 passed by Judge Small Cause
Court/ Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Mathura in S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 2001 and
order
dated
30.08.2025
passed
by
Additional District Judge, Court No. 1,
Mathura in S.C.C. Revision No. 37 of
2012.

3. Matters under Article 227 No. 1903
of 2015 has been filed challenging the
judgment and order dated 12.03.2015
passed by Additional District Judge, Court
No. 8, Mathura remitting the matter back to
lower revisional court to decide revision
afresh in light of observation made in the
order impugned.

4. Matters under Article 227 No. 2081
of 2015 also questions the legality of order
dated 12.03.2015 passed by Additional
District Judge, Court No. 8, Mathura
remitting back the matter to trial court to
decide afresh.

5. Counsels appearing in all the three
matters
representing
different
parties
consented that matter be heard and decided
together, thus, this Court proceeds to hear
and decide the same by common order.

6. Brief facts, leading rise to present
dispute, are that one Sri Jugal Kishore Birla
1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
son of Raja Baldeo Das Birla, from his own
funds, purchased 13 acre 37 decimal land
bearing Khasra No. 825, Muhal Gair
Khwahindgan Khewat No. 255, which was
in ruins, from its owner Swami Rai Krishna
Das and Rai Anand Krishna for Rs.13,400/-
, in the name of Mahamana Pandit Madan
Mohan Malviya, Gosain Ganesh Dutt and
Professor
Bhikhan
Lal
Aatreya
on
08.02.1944 and a registered sale-deed was
executed.

7. Mahamana Malviya in order to
develop the land constituted a temporary
committee in name of "Shri Krishna
Janmbhumi
Jirnodhar
Samiti".
A
publication was made in daily newspaper
on 08.07.1944. A meeting was held at
Mathura for constructing a monument of
Shri Krishna and it was resolved that
money needed for such construction was to
be collected. However, due to sad demise
of Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya, the work
of Samiti stopped. Sri Jugal Kishore Birla
who had purchased the land from his
money, in order to fulfill the dream of
Mahamana Malviya established a trust on
21.02.1951. The trust was created in name
of "Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust". Clause
2 of the deed provided for object of the
trust, which is as under:-

"2- इ रस्ट िा उद् देश्य िटरा
िेशवदेव िा जीणोद्धार िरिे उ पर भगवाि
श्रीिृष्ण िा, उििी मदहमा िे अिुरूप, स्मारि
बिवािा और ि िेवल भारतवर्ा में अवपतु
 िंभव हो तो म्पूणा ववश्व में उििे गीतोक्त
धमोपदेशों िा प्रचार-प्र ार िरिा है। इ
उ द्देश्य िी पूनता िे सलए रस्ट िे निम्िसलणखत
िताव्य होंगे।

1. श्रीिृष्ण जन्मभूसम पर ववशाल
मजन्दर तथा तत् म्बन्धी अन्य भविों िा
निमााण िरिे उििा िंचालि िरिा।

2.
िथा-िीताि
और
प्रवचि-
व्याख्याि िा आयोजि िरिा।

3.
आध्याजत्मि
तथा
धासमाि
 ादहत्य िा ववद्यालय एविं पुस्तिालय खोलिा
और चलािा।

4. धासमाि एविं ािंस्िृनति िंस्थाओिं
िो हायता देिा ।

5. ववद्यागथायों िो छात्रवृवत्त प्रदाि
िरिा ।

6. उपयुाक्त उद्देश्य िी पूनता िे सलए
और भी जो आवश्यि हो िरिा।"

8. Clause 4 of the deed provided that
trust committee would have minimum of
11 trustees with a maximum limit of 21.
Names of original 15 trustees was detailed
in Clause 4 of the deed, which is as under:-

"1. श्री गणेश वा ुदेव मावलिंिर-
अहमदाबाद

2. श्री िन्हैयालाल माणणिलाल
मुिंशी- बम्बई

3. श्री िरहरर ववष्णु गािगगल- पूिा

4. श्री द्वाररिा प्र ाद समश्र- िागपुर

5. श्री गोववन्द मालवीय- बिार

6. श्री भीखिलाल आत्रेय- बिार

7. श्री गोस्वामी गणेशदत्त- िई ददल्ली

8. श्री जुगल किशोर त्रबरला- िई
ददल्ली
11 All. Ashok Raghav Vs. Sri Krishna Janam Sewa Sansthan
1303

9. श्री ववयोगी हरर- ददल्ली

11. श्री प्रभुदयाल दहम्मतस िंहिा-
िलित्ता

12. श्री स्वामी अखिंिािन्द रस्वती-
वृन्दावि

13. श्री द्वाररिािाथ ऐिवोिेट-
मथुरा

14. श्री ब्रजलाल बमाि हिीम- मथुरा

15. श्री भगवािदा भागाव- मथुरा"

9.
With
passage
of
time,
on
01.05.1958, a society in the name of "Shri
Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan" was
registered under provisions of Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred
as "the Act of 1860") and registration
certificate was granted on 23.09.1958.
Clause 2 of Memorandum of society
enumerates the object of the society which
was formed by trustees of Shri Krishna
Janmbhumi Trust, which is as under:-

"२- उद्देश्य- इ िंस्था िा उद्देश्य
 मस्त मािव जानत िे आध्याजत्मि एविं
िैनति उत्थाि एविं उत्थाि एविं दहत िो दृजष्ट में
रखते हुए कि ी ववशेर् धासमाि म्प्रदाय, मत,
जानत अथवा अन्य कि ी भी ववभेदिारी
दृजष्टिोण े प्रनतबद्ध या ीसमत ि रहते हुॅे
जगदगुरु श्रीिृष्ण िा उििी मदहला िे अिुरूप
स्मारि बिवािा और स्वदेश-ववदेश में गीतोक्त
ज्ञाि-ववज्ञाि िा िंिलि, अिु िंधाि, प्रिाशि
एविं प्रचार-प्र ार िरिा है। इ उद्देश्य िी पूनता
िे सलए िंस्था िे निम्िसलणखत िताव्य होंगे-

(१) श्रीिृष्ण-जन्मभूसमधर भगवाि
श्रीिृष्ण िा ववशाल स्मारि तथा तत् म्बन्धी
अन्य भविों - जै े पुस्तिालय, वाचिालय,
 भागार, रिंगमिंच, गचकित् ालय, और्धालय,
ववद्यालय, यात्री-ववश्राम-गृह आदद-िा निमााण
िरिा एविं उििा िंचालि िरिा।

(२)
आध्याजत्मि,
लोि-
िल्याणिारी, चररत्र-निमााण म्बन्धी एविं
सशक्षाप्रद ादहत्य, िोश आदद िा लेखि,
 िंिलि, शोध, प्रिाशि, प्रचार-प्र ार आदद
िरिा तथा ववद्यालय एविं पुस्तिालय खोलिा
और उििा िंचालि िरिा।

(3) लोि-िल्याणिारी एविं िैनति,
चाररत्रत्रि उत्थाि हेतु व्याख्यािों एविं प्रवचिों
आदद िा आयोजि िरिा।

(४)
 ािंस्िृनति
 िंस्थाओिं
िी
 हायता देिा तथा ािंस्िृनति िायाक्रमों िा
आयोजि िरिा।

(५) योग्य एविं निधाि ववद्यागथायों िो
छात्रवृवत्त प्रदाि िरिा।

(६) ब्रज एविं श्रीिृष्ण म्बन्धी
ववववध ादहत्य, िंस्िृनत, िला, सशल्प,
इनतहा और पुरातत्वाववयर अिु िंधाि िरिा
तथा उििा प्रिाशि आदद िरिा।

(७) गौविंश िे पालि एविं िंरक्षण िो
प्रोत् ाहि देिा।

(८) व्यायामशाला एविं क्रीड़ा-प्रसशक्षण
िेन्र स्थावपत िरिा एविं उििा िंचालि
िरिा।"

10. Initially, all the 15 trustees were
made Member of the society whose name
finds
place
in
Clause
3
of
the
Memorandum, which is as under:-
1304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
क्र.
 िं.

िाम

पता

व्यव ाय
1
श्री
एम.
अिन्तश्यिम
आयिंगर

20- अिबर रोि,
ियी ददल्ली

भारतीय
लोि भा
िे
अध्यक्ष

2
श्री
िरहरर
ववष्णु
गािगगल

31-कफरोजशाह
रोि,
ियी
ददल्ली

ररजवा बैंि िे
पदागधिारी

3
श्री
गोववन्द
मालवीय

16- ी,
कफरोजशाह,
रोि,
ियी
ददल्ली।

भारतीय
लोि भा
 दस्य

4
श्री
प्रभुदयालजी
दहम्मतस िंह
िा

11- क्वीिं पािा,
िलित्ता-16

एटिी
तथा
भारतीय
राज्य भा
 दस्य

5
श्री
जुगलकिशोर
त्रबरला

त्रबरला
भवि,
ियी ददल्ली।

व्यापार
6
श्री जयदयाल
िालसमया
2-
हाडििंग
रवेन्यु,
ियी
ददल्ली
व्यापार
7
श्री
गोस्वामी
गणेशदि
त्रबरला मजन्दर,
ियी ददल्ली।
जि ेवा
8
श्री
जिादाि
भट्ट

त्रबरला लाइन् ,
ददल्ली।

जि ेवा
9
श्री
ववयोगी
हरर
हररजि
 ेवि
 िंघ,
कििंग् वे,
ददल्ली।
जि ेवा
10
श्री
द्वाररिाप्र ाद
समश्र

 ागर
(मध्य
प्रदेश)
 ागर
ववश्वववद्यालय
िे िुलपनत

11
श्री
मीखिलाल
आत्रेय

िाशी
ववश्वववद्यालय,
वाराण ी

अविाश प्राप्त
प्राध्यापि

12
श्री
स्वामी
उडड़याबाबा िा
 न्या ी
अखण्िािन्द -
 रस्वती

आश्रम,
वृन्दावि।

13
श्री
द्वाररिािाथ
भागाव
मथुरा।
एिवोिेट
14
श्री
बृजलाल
बमाि

मथुरा।
 दस्य ववधाि
- पररर्द उo प्र
o

15
श्री
भगवािदा
भागाव

मथुरा।
अविाशप्राप्त
जज

11. The by-laws of society were
amended and registered on 27.06.1983.
From time to time the registration of
society has been renewed and last of
renewal has taken place in 2025. Clause 4
of by-laws provides that movable and
immovable property of society will vest in
trustees of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust
and work of trust will be performed as per
rule of the trust. After creation of trust,
trustees decided for registration of society
for
day
to
day
performance
and
management of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi
work and society is working since 1958.

12. Constructions which were raised
by society, were with approval of the trust.
Certain shops were constructed in campus
of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi which were let
out by society. On 02.09.1987, Shop No. 8A was let out to petitioner of Writ Petition
No. 11338 of 2025 for a period of 11
months at monthly licence fees of Rs.300/-.
Notice under Section 106 of Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred as
"the Act of 1882") was given to petitioner
on 06.07.2001 terminating his tenancy. The
said notice was replied and an amount of
Rs.300/- was tendered. The plaintiffrespondent took back the notice dated
11 All. Ashok Raghav Vs. Sri Krishna Janam Sewa Sansthan
1305
06.07.2001 and again gave notice on
17.09.2001
terminating
the
tenancy.
Petitioner refused to accept the notice.
Again, registered notice was sent on
03.10.2001 and 15.10.2001 which was also
refused by tenant-petitioner. A publication
was made in newspaper Amar Ujala on
06.11.2001. When the shop was not
vacated, S.C.C. Suit No. 26 of 2001 was
filed by plaintiff-respondent against tenantpetitioner of Writ Petition No. 11338 of
2025. The trial court framed following
issues:-

"1. क्या वववाददत म्पवत्त श्री िृष्ण
जन्म ेवा िंस्थाि िी म्पवत्त है ?

2. क्या वादी प्रनतवादी िो बेदखल
िर वववाददत म्पवत्त पर िब्जा प्राप्त िरिे िा
अगधिारी है ?

3. क्या प्रस्तुत वाद धारा 106
 म्पवत्त अिंतरण अगधनियम एविं धारा 20 यू०
पी० एक्ट 13/72 िे िोदट िे अभाव में
पोर्णीय िहीिं है?

4. क्या प्रस्तुत वाद धारा 20 यू० पी०
एक्ट 13/72 िे अिंतगात एविं आधार पर ि होिे
िे िारण पोर्णीय िहीिं है ?

5. क्या वादी, प्रनतवादी े मु०
5,000/- धारा 35ए दी० प्र० िं० प्राप्त िरिे िा
अगधिारी है ?

6. वादी अन्य उपशम प्राप्त िरिे िा
अगधिारी है ?

उपरोक्त
िे
अनतररक्त
आदेश
ददिािंकित
27.02.2007
िे
माध्यम
 े
निम्िािंकित अनतररक्त निधाारि त्रबन्दु ववरगचत
किए गए:-

7. क्या वादी वैध लोि धमााथा
 िंस्थाि है ?

8. क्या श्री िवपल शमाा िो वादी
 िंस्थाि िी ओर े दावा दायर िरिे िा
अगधिार िहीिं है ?

9. क्या इ वाद िे आधार पर ददया
गया िोदट अववगधि एविं अवैध है ?

10.
क्या
दस्तावेज
ददिािंकित
02.09.87 वास्तववि रूप े लाइ ैं पर
आधाररत है, या पट्टे पर ?"

13. Issue Nos. 1, 4 and 7 were in
regard to whether the property is of Shri
Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan and
whether the suit not filed under Section 20
of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not
maintainable and whether the plaintiff was
a public charitable institution or not. The
trial court found the plaintiff to be owner of
the property in question and further held
that provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 was
not applicable. The trial court also decided
other issues in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendant and decreed the suit
for eviction and damages on 31.08.2012.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner
preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 37 of 2012
which was dismissed vide judgment
impugned dated 30.08.2025. Hence, Writ
Petition No. 11338 of 2025.

14.
Similarly,
plaintiff-respondent
filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent
and realisation of electricity dues in respect
of Shop No. 8 against one Smt. Padma
Raghav,
defendant-petitioner
of
Writ
Petition No. 1903 of 2015, which was
registered as S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2000. In
the said suit, following seven issues were
framed:-
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1- क्या प्रनतवादी वाद म्पवत्त पर
चार ौ रूपये प्रनतमाह िी दर े किरायेदार व
अध्या ी है?

2-क्या प्रनतवादी िे द्वारा किराया
अदा िरिे में व्यनतक्रम िो किया गया है? जै ा
वादपत्र में िहा गया है? यदद हा तो प्रभाव?

3- क्या प्रनतवादी े वादी वाद
 म्पवत्त िो किराया माप्त िर खाली िरा
पािे िा अगधिारी है? यदद हािं तो प्रभाव ?

4- क्या वादी चेररटेत्रबल िंस्था िहीिं
है, यदद हािं तो प्रभाव?

5- क्या वाद ववगधि रूप े पोर्णीय
िहीिं है?

6- वादी कि अन्य अिुतोर् िो पािे
िा अगधिारी है?

7- क्या वववाददत म्पवत्त पर धारा
13 ि् 1972 िे प्राववधाि लागू होते हैं? यदद हािं
तो प्रभाव?"

15. The trial court on 09.07.2012
while deciding Issue No. 4 and 7 found that
plaintiff-respondent
was
not
public
charitable trust and provisions of Act No.
13 of 1972 were applicable and dismissed
the suit on 09.07.2012. Aggrieved by the
said judgment, plaintiff-respondent filed
S.C.C. Revision No. 31 of 2012 which was
allowed on 12.03.2015 and the case was
remitted back to trial court for deciding
afresh. Hence, Writ Petition No. 1903 of
2015 was filed.

16. Dispute in respect of Shop No. 16
and 17 had led to eviction proceeding
having
been
initiated
by
plaintiffrespondent and also for decree of Rs.2600/-
as rent and damages against Late Harish
Raghav which was registered as S.C.C. Suit
No. 14 of 2002. During pendency of the
suit, Harish Raghav died and his legal heirs
i.e. petitioners of Writ Petition No. 2081 of
2015 were substituted as legal heirs. The
trial court framed following issues in the
suit:-

"1- क्या प्रनतवादी वाद म्पवत्त पर
510/- प्रनतमाह िी दर े किरायेदार व अध्या ी
है?

2-क्या प्रनतवादी िे द्वारा किराया
अदा िरिे में व्यनतिम िो किया गया है? जै ा
वादपत्र में िहा गया है? यदद हािं तो प्रभाव?

3-क्या प्रनतवादी े वादी वाद म्पवत्त
िा किराया माप्त िर खाली िरा पािे िा
अगधिारी है? यदद हािं तो प्रभाव?

4-क्या वादी चेररटेत्रबल िंस्था िहीिं है,
यदद हािं तो प्रभाव?

5-वादी कि अन्य अिुतोर् िो पािे
िा अगधिारी है?

6-क्या वाद ववगधि रूप े पोर्णीय
िहीिं है?

7-क्या वादी िी ओर े श्री िवपल
शमाा िो बतौर िंयुक्त गचव दावा दायर िरिे
िा या िोदट देिे िा अगधिार है?

8-क्या वादी िा वाद धारा 20ब (4)
उ०प्र० अगधनियम-13/1972 एविं धारा 114
 म्पवत्त अन्तरण अगधनियम े बागधत है?

9-क्या
वादी
िा
वाद
लघुवाद
न्यायालय में चलिे योग्य िहीिं है, एविं धारा 23लगुवाद अगधनियम िे अन्तगात रेग्यूलर ाईि
में वावप किये जािे योग्य है?"
11 All. Ashok Raghav Vs. Sri Krishna Janam Sewa Sansthan
1307

17. The said suit was dismissed on
09.07.2012 on the ground that plaintiff is
not a public charitable trust and Act No. 13
of 1972 was applicable. Aggrieved by the
said judgment, S.C.C. Revision No. 32 of
2012 was filed by plaintiff-respondent
which was allowed on 12.03.2015 and the
judgment of trial court was set aside and
the matter was remitted for consideration
afresh. Hence, Writ Petition No. 2081 of
2015 was filed.

18. Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior
Counsel appearing in Writ Petition No.
11338 of 2025 submitted that only point for
consideration in the writ petition is that no
document was filed to prove that Kapil
Sharma was Secretary of the society and
had power to contest the suit filed on behalf
of society. According to him, this was the
specific ground taken in the revision which
had remained unanswered by court below.
According to him, in S.C.C. Suit No. 360
of 2004 filed by society against one Pooran
Singh Raghav, Issue No. 9 was framed in
regard to authority of Kapil Sharma to
institute suit on behalf of society and a
finding has been returned against plaintiff
of that suit. He also invited attention of the
Court to finding recorded in S.C.C. Suit
No. 9 of 2000 in which it has been held that
Kapil Sharma did not have authority to
institute suit on behalf of plaintiff.

19. Similarly, he has placed finding
recorded by trial court in S.C.C. Suit No.
14 of 2002 instituted against Harish
Raghav. According to him, once papers
were not in proper shape and not placed
before the court, there stood no occasion
for the court in maintaining the proceedings
against defendant-petitioner.

20. However, as to applicability of Act
No. 13 of 1972, he fairly conceded that
already the issue has been decided in
decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench in
case of Nand Kishore Gosaeen and
others vs. State of U. P. and others, 1999
(4) AWC 3085 wherein validity of Section
2(bb) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(hereinafter called as "the Act of 1972")
was
challenged
and
the
Court
had
dismissed the petition upholding the
validity of the said provision.

21. Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel
appearing in other two connected writ
petitions being Writ Petition No. 1903 of
2015 and 2081 of 2015 submitted that
plaintiff
is
not
a
public
charitable
institution as defined under Section 3(r)
and 3(s) of the Act of 1972 and, thus, the
Act No. 13 of 1972 is not exempted. He has
relied upon the finding recorded by trial
court in matter of Padma Raghav and
Harish Raghav. According to him, it was
incumbent upon the plaintiff to have
discharged his burden to carve out a case
under Section 2(bb) of the Act of 1972 for
being exempted under the said Act. He
further submitted that the revisional court
was not correct in setting aside the decision
of trial court and remitting back the matter
to trial court for decision afresh.

22. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondent
in all the three matters submitted that trust
deed of 1951 is a conclusive proof in itself
of the fact that land was purchased by Jugal
Kishore Birla in name of Mahamana Pandit
Madan Mohan Malviya, Gosain Ganesh
Dutt and Professor Bhikhan Lal Aatreya for
the benefit of entire Hindu community for
Rs.13,400/- in the year 1944. A trust was
created in 1951 which enumerates the
object of the trust and it clearly reveals that
it is a public religious charitable trust for
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the welfare of the entire Hindu community
not only residing within the country but
throughout the world.

23. According to him, the object of the
trust and, thereafter, the society formed in
the year 1958 having same persons as
Members who were trustees also reveal that
object of the society was for the benefit of
public at large which is well within the
definition of Section 2(bb) of the Act of
1972.

24. He then submitted that initially
when Section 2(3) of Act of 1972 was in
force, the Government by notification dated
20.09.1994 had exempted Shri Krishna
Janmsthan
Seva
Sansthan,
Bhagwat
Bhawan and Aayurved Bhawan along with
shops and rooms inside the same Sansthan
from operation of the Act of 1972.
However, with the amendment which came
into effect from 26.09.1994 through U.P.
Act No. 5 of 1995, Section 2(bb) was
added and Section 2(3) was omitted.
Further, validity of Section 2(bb) has
already been decided by co-ordinate Bench
in case of Nand Kishore Gosaeen (supra)
in which petitioner Ashok Raghav was
petitioner no. 6. Once the issue under
Section 2(bb) has been decided and
attained finality, tenants cannot raise this
question as to character of the trust or
society in proceedings before court below.
According to him, the licence was only for
a period of 11 months which was never
renewed and plaintiff treating them to be in
unauthorised occupation had given notice
for eviction under Section 106 of the Act of
1882. He also contends that concurrent
finding of fact has been recorded in Writ
Petition No. 11338 of 2025 while the
challenge in Writ Petition No. 1903 of
2015 and 2081 of 2015 is only to a remand
order.

25. I have heard respective counsel for
the parties and perused the material on
record.

26. Petitioners, before this Court, have
questioned the order passed by court below
on two premise. Firstly, that Kapil Sharma,
Secretary of society did not have authority
to institute and carry on the suit. Secondly,
trust/society is not a public religious
institution, hence, Act No. 13 of 1972 is
applicable.

27. Before delving in to decide the
question
raised
by
tenants-petitioners,
reading of object with which the trust in
name of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust
was created and, thereafter, society in name
of Sri Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan
was created and registered in the year 1958,
would reveal that Sri Jugal Kishore Birla
had purchased Khasra No. 825, Khewat
No. 255, measuring 13 acre 37 decimal for
Rs.13,400/- through a registered sale-deed
on 08.02.1944 from Swami Rai Krishna
Das and Rai Anand Krishna not in his
personal name but in the name of
Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya,
Gosain Ganesh Dutt and Professor Bhikhan
Lal Aatreya.

28. Mahamana Malviya had formed a
temporary society in name of "Shri Krishna
Janmbhumi Jirnodhar Samiti", and a
publication was made in newspaper for
developing the said land. A meeting was
held on 08.07.1944 at Mathura where a
resolution was passed for developing the
land in name of Sri Krishna and collecting
money for the said purpose.

29. As Mahamana Malviya had passed
away, to fulfill his dream, Sri Jugal Kishore
Birla had got a trust registered on
21.02.1951 with the object enshrined in
11 All. Ashok Raghav Vs. Sri Krishna Janam Sewa Sansthan
1309
Clause 2, developing Katra Keshav Deo
and on the said land making construction
and conveying teachings of Lord Krishna
not only throughout India but throughout
the world.

30. It further provided that trust will
after constructing a grand temple at Shri
Krishna Janmbhumi will not only manage
it, but also make provision for kirtan and
other religious lectures, and also open
college, library and provide scholarship to
students.

31. The object enshrined in Clause 2
clearly covers it under provisions of
Section 3(r) and 3(s) i.e. charitable and
religious institution. The object provided in
Clause 2 encompasses the character of both
"charitable
institution"
and
"religious
institution". As the trust was created not for
the benefit of a family or a particular
person but for the benefit of the Hindus
throughout the world, thus, it can be safely
called as public charitable and religious
institution covered under Section 2(bb) of
the Act of 1972.

32. The formation of society in the
year 1958 by trustees with the object
enshrined in Clause 2 further clarified and
specified the public charitable and religious
character for which it was registered by
same 15 trustees who became Members of
the society. From reading of Clause 2 of the
trust
deed
and
Clause
2
of
the
Memorandum of society, no iota of doubt
remains as to charitable and religious
character of the plaintiff-society.

33. The arguments raised in Writ
Petition No. 1903 of 2015 and 2081 of
2015 are displaced from perusal of the trust
deed of 1951 and the object of the society
registered in the year 1958.

34. Moreover, after sub-section (3) of
Section 2 was omitted by U.P. Act No. 5 of
1995
which
came
into
effect
from
26.09.1994 and Section 2(bb) having been
inserted in Section 2 of the Act of 1972
which lays down exemption from the
operation of Act of 1972, it is thus clear
that any building belonging to or vested in
public
charitable
or
public
religious
institution, the Act of 1972 was not
applicable.

35. In the instant case, it is clear that
trust formed in the year 1951 was of public
charitable and religious character. The
society was registered in the year 1958 to
supplement the cause of the trust and look
after its day to day function and also has a
character
of
charitable
and
religious
institution as required in Section 3(r) and
3(s) of the Act.

36. Once it is clear that both trust and
society formed for the benefit of public at
large, and had a character of charitable and
religious institution, the operation of the
Act became exempted in view of Section
2(bb). The trial court in the suit instituted
by plaintiff-respondent against Padma
Raghav and Harish Raghav had wrongly
interpreted the judgment of co-ordinate
Bench of this Court rendered in case of
Nand Kishore Gosaeen (supra). The
objection as to building being vested in a
public
religious
institution
is
easily
identifiable from the object enshrined in the
trust deed and by-laws of the society. The
trial court in both the suits filed by
plaintiff-respondent had held it to be a
private trust not having charitable and
religious character which is against the
material on record.

37. Now, coming to the other question
posed before this Court by Sri Atul Dayal,
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned Senior Counsel as to finding
recorded by both courts below in case of
petitioner Ashok Raghav that Kapil Sharma
was authorised to continue the suit on
behalf of plaintiff-respondent though there
was no document to prove that he
continued as Secretary of society.

38. From perusal of material on record
and finding recorded by courts below, it is
evident that registration of the society was
renewed till 2001 and Kapil Sharma was
appointed as Secretary of the society. Bylaws clearly provided that Secretary and
Joint Secretary of the society were
authorised to carry on the work of society
and to sue and pursue litigation on behalf
of society.

39. Section 5 of Societies Registration
Act provides that all properties of society
will vest in trustees and in absence of
trustees, it will vest in governing body.
From reading of by-laws of society, it is
clear that it was registered for fulfilling
object of Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust.
While Section 6 provides for suits by and
against trustees, while Section 7 provides
that no suit or proceeding in any civil court
shall abate or discontinue by reason of the
person, by or against whom such suit or
proceeding shall have been brought or
continued, dying or ceasing to fill the
character in the name whereof he shall have
sued or been sued, but the same suit or
proceeding shall be continued in the name
of or against the successor of such person.
Relevant Sections 5, 6 and 7 are extracted
hereasunder:-

"5. Property of society how
vested.-The
property,
movable
and
immovable,
belonging
to
a
society
registered under this Act, if not vested in
trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for
the time being, in the governing body of
such society, and in all proceedings, civil
and criminal, may be described as the
property of the governing body of such
society by their proper title.

6. Suits by and against societies.-
Every society registered under this Act may
sue or be sued in the name of the president,
chairman, or principal secretary, or
trustees, as shall be determined by the rules
and regulations of the society, and, in
default of such determination, in the name
of such person as shall be appointed by the
governing body for the occasion:

Provided
that
it
shall
be
competent for any person having a claim or
demand against the society, to sue the
president
or
chairman,
or
principal
secretary or the trustees thereof, if on
application to the governing body some
other officer or person be not nominated to
be the defendant.

7. Suits not to abate.-No suit or
proceeding in any Civil Court shall abate
or discontinue by reason of the person, by
or against whom such suit or proceedings
shall have been brought or continued,
dying or ceasing to fill the character in the
name whereof he shall have sued or been
sued, but the same suit or proceeding shall
be continued in the name of or against the
successor of such person."

40. Thus, from the conjoint reading of
aforesaid provisions, it is clear that suit was
instituted in the name of society registered
in the year 1958 and was being pursued by
Secretary so elected amongst the Members.
The trial court while deciding Issue No. 8,
relying upon Paper No. 466/1 which was
proceeding of management committee of
Shri Krishna Janmbhumi Trust and Shri
Krishna Janmsthan Seva Sansthan, had
recorded finding that resolution was passed
appointing Kapil Sharma as Secretary of
11 All. Anil Kumar Vs. Ramraj & Ors.
1311
the society which was in consonance with
Clause 26 of by-laws registered with
Registrar of Societies. Moreover, Clause 33
of by-laws clearly provided that any legal
proceeding initiated by society or against
society shall be carried by Secretary and
Joint Secretary of the society.

41. It is an undisputed fact that society
had instituted suit for eviction against
petitioners in all the three writ petitions and
a hyper technical objection has been raised
that Kapil Sharma had no authority to
contest the matter on behalf of society. It is
evidently clear from Clause 26 and 33 of bylaws of the society that the Secretary as well
as Joint Secretary are empowered to contest
all the litigations before the Court on behalf
of society. Further, there is no dispute
among any of the trustees or Members of the
trust or society in regard to authority of
Kapil Sharma acting as Secretary of the
society.

42. Once, such is the position that the
authority of Kapil Sharma acting as Secretary
of the society has never been under challenge
by any of the trustee or members of society, the
question raised by tenant-petitioner is of no
consequence.

43. This Court finds that the eviction
proceeding has been dragged on for last 25
years and solely on technical ground the
possession of the shop in question could not be
handed over to landlord-society.

44. During argument, Sri H.N. Singh,
learned Senior Counsel had submitted that due
to huge influx of devotees thronging at the
Temple everyday, it has become difficult to
manage the crowd and shops within the campus
need to be removed for easy accessibility of the
devotees to perform their religious obligation
within the temple premises.

45. This Court finds that initially only a
licence was granted to petitioners for a period of
11 months. They have continued for a long time
despite the fact that licence was never renewed.
The only effort on the part of petitioners is to
drag on the litigation on technical ground.

46.
Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, I find that no
interference is required in the finding
recorded by both courts below in Writ
Petition No. 11338 of 2025 as to public
religious and charitable character of plaintiffrespondent society and also the challenge to
the authority of Secretary of the society.
Thus, both the questions framed above stand
answered.

47. Similarly, no interference is required
in the order passed by revisional court which is
under challenge in Writ Petition No. 1903 of
2015 and Writ Petition No. 2081 of 2015.

48. All the three writ petitions fail and are
hereby dismissed.

49. However, the trial court is directed to
proceed with S.C.C. Suit No. 9 of 2000 and
S.C.C. Suit No. 14 of 2002, expeditiously and
conclude the proceedings, within a period of
two months, from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 12830 of 2025

Anil Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Ramraj & Ors. ...Respondents