# Neel Prasad v. Anoop Prasad

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 49
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-29
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neel-prasad-v-anoop-prasad-47843
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Indian Trust Act, 1882Section 34 & 1-Constitution of India, 1950Article 227-Public religious trust-petitioner
granted permission to dispose of the
property of the temple for reconstruction -
Trial court rightly rejected the application
holding that the Act 1882 does not apply to
public or private religious or charitable
endowments-Petitioner's cause is noble and
requires urgent relief but the remedy is not
available at all in the present case.(Para 1 to
14)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

## Text

11 All. Neel Prasad Vs. Anoop Prasad
49
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 49
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 860 of 2022 (Civil)

Neel Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
Anoop Prasad ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Deepak Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Manish Goyal (Sr. Advocate), Sri Manish
Goyal A.C., Sri Manish Goyal Amircus
Curiae

A. Civil Law - Indian Trust Act, 1882Section 34 & 1-Constitution of India, 1950Article 227-Public religious trust-petitioner
granted permission to dispose of the
property of the temple for reconstruction -
Trial court rightly rejected the application
holding that the Act 1882 does not apply to
public or private religious or charitable
endowments-Petitioner's cause is noble and
requires urgent relief but the remedy is not
available at all in the present case.(Para 1 to
14)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner and Mr. Manish Goyal, learned
Senior Advocate, who on request of the
Court acted as Amicus Curiae.

2. This petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution arises from proceedings
brought before the District Judge of
Gorakhpur under Section 34 of the Indian
Trusts Act, 1882 (for short, 'the Act of
1882').

3. By an application under Section 34
of the Act of 1882, the petitioner, invoking
the advisory jurisdiction of the Court
regarding the management of trust property
of the temple of Thakur Ji, has come up
with a prayer for the grant of permission to
dispose of the property of the temple, that
is debutter, in order to apply the proceeds
of the sale for restoration of the temple, that
is said to be hundred years old and in a
dilapidated condition.

4. The learned Additional District
Judge, Court No.1, Gorakhpur, before
whom the said application numbered as
Civil Misc. Case No. 171 of 2020 came up,
has rejected the same, holding that the Act
of 1882 does not apply to public or private
religious or charitable endowments.

5. It is against the said order that the
unsuccessful applicant before the District
Judge has petitioned this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution.

6. Since a purely legal question about
the applicability of the Act of 1882 to a
religious endowment or a trust, governing a
temple, where thousands throng in faith
was involved, this Court requested Mr.
Manish Goyal to assist the Court as Amicus
Curiae. Mr. Goyal readily rendered his
very able assistance.

7. The applicant, Neel Prasad says
that he has been the owner of a one-half
share in the property shown in Schedule A
to the application moved before the District
Judge and has power of disposition over it.
His ancestor, Rai Thakur Dayal Singh was
50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an issueless man with inclination towards
religion. He got a temple of Thakur Dwara
Ji constructed and consecrated at Village
Sarhari over land shown in Schedule B to
the application, where members of the
public in general offer prayers (PoojaArchana). The said temple was got
constructed by Rai Thakur Dayal Singh in
the year 1880 and he donated for the
purpose of maintenance of the said temple,
as per his wish, 100 bighas (pakka) land.
However, before Rai Thakur Dayal Singh
could execute a deed of trust, gift or the
other disposition in favour of the temple, he
passed away. Therefore, his widow, Smt.
Jaswant Kunwari and another Rai Devi
Saran Lal executed a gift deed dated
29.04.1885, donating lands comprised in
Schedule A to the application, then lying in
Village Bhelam. In consequence, the name
of Smt. Jaswant Kunwari was mutated out
of the Government records and that of
Thakur Ji Mandir, Sarhari was entered.

8. It is the petitioner's case that during
the first and the second rounds of the
consolidation operations, all that was the
property of Thakur Ji Mandir, Sarhari, given
in gift, remained His. The temple is for the
benefit of public in general and has now
turned 100 years old. It has fallen into
disrepair and may collapse any time. It was,
therefore, said that to save the temple from
grave damage, it was necessary that fresh
construction thereof be undertaken in keeping
with Rai Thakur Dayal Singh's religious
sentiments. An estimated expenditure of Rs.
16 lakhs in the enterprise was indicated, for
which there were no funds with the temple. A
prayer, therefore, was made that the property
of the temple, that is debutter, comprising of
agricultural holdings, shown in Schedule A to
the application, may be permitted to be sold,
the proceeds whereof would be applied for
reconstruction of the temple.

9. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner says that the mischief sought to be
remedied is grave and emergent. Mr. Goyal,
on the other hand, submits that the Act of
1882 does not apply to any kind of a religious
trust, public or private.

10. Upon hearing the learned Counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Goyal, the
learned Amicus Curiae, this Court does find
that the Act of 1882 does not apply to any
kind of a religious trust. The reason is to be
found in Section 1 of the Act of 1882, that
reads:

"1. Short title.--This Act may be
called the Indian Trusts Act, 1882:

Commencement.--and
it
shall
come into force on the first day of March,
1882.

Local extent.-- It extends to the
whole of India [except the State of Jammu
and Kashmir] and the Andaman and
Nicobar
Islands;
but
the
Central
Government may, from time to time, by
notification in the Official Gazette, extend
it to [the, Andaman and Nicobar Islands] or
to any part thereof.]

Savings.--But
nothing
herein
contained affects the rules of Muhammadan
law as to waqf, or the mutual relations of
the members of an undivided family as
determined by any customary or personal
law, or applies to public or private religious
or charitable endowments, or to trusts to
distribute prizes taken in war among the
captors; and nothing in the second Chapter
of this Act applies to trusts created before
the said day."

 (emphasis by Court)

11. It is evident that the Act of 1882
does not apply at all to a public religious
trust. The temple of Thakur Ji, Sarhari,
which is a public religious endowment,
11 All. Jamuna Ram Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.
51
both by the terms of dedication and the
subsequent use, where thousands repose
faith in Thakur Ji, would not be governed
by the Act of 1882. This is precisely what
the learned Additional District Judge has
held, and in the opinion of this Court,
rightly so. Mr. Goyal points out that the
public religious endowments are governed
by the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act,
1920 and certain other legislations also
apply. It is true that the petitioner's cause is
noble and requires urgent relief, but the
remedy he has been advised to invoke, is
not available at all in the present case.

12. In the circumstances, no case for
interference with the impugned order is
made out.

13. The petitioner will, however, be at
liberty to invoke all or any such remedy/
remedies, as may be advised to secure urgent
relief, unaffected by anything said in this
order or the learned District Judge's order.

14. This petition is disposed of,
accordingly.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 51
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 863 of 2022

Jamuna Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tariq Naiyer, Sri Himanshu Kumar, Sri
Deepak Pandey, Sri Zafar M. Naiyar (Sr.
Advocate)
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vinay Kumar Gupta, Sri Atul Dayal (Sr.
Advocate)

A. Civil Law - U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972-Section 3(a)(1)-Constitution of
India,
1950-Article
227-whether
the
petitioner
upon
his
father's
demise,
inherited the tenancy along with his
brother as a joint tenant-In case of a
residential building, not all heirs of the
deceased tenant are entitled to inherit the
tenancy-the petitioner is an heir of the
deceased tenant, being his son, but the
revisional
court
finds
no
direct
documentary evidence, such as a rent
receipt
or
a
municipal
record
of
assessment to indicate that the tenant
was ever recorded as such-the tenant
lived with his father in the one room
accommodation, when he passed away,
along with his brother, is a matter to be
established by evidence-the date of death
is not on record which is material for the
tenant to establish his contemporaneous
ordinary
residence
in
the
demised
premises at the time of his father passed
away in order to succeed to a residential
tenancy u/s 3(a)(1) of the Act-Moreso,
rent receipt issued in the tenant's name
annexed with paper book is a forged and
fabricated
document-The
Court
disapproves the tenant's conduct in doing
so.(Para 1 to 23)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Sarla Devi Vs Pushpa Agnihotri (2008) 2 ARC
725

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution is directed against the
order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Court No. 14,
Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 36 of
2014,
dismissing
the
Revision
and