JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dated 21.9.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Deedwana in Civil Regular Appeal No. 60/1999 (38/1992, 128/1992) "Ramesh Chandra v. Milap Chand & Ors." who dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 1.9.1992 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana in Civil Original Suit No. 177/1987 "Milap Chandra & Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra" by which, the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate had decreed the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs-Milap Chand & Ors seeking possession of property in question, which is a house, situated at Deedwana, District Nagaur belonging to the Padha Mataji Temple Trust, Deedwana. The appellant-defendant Ramesh Chandra S/o Mool Chand Brahmin (Sevak), since deceased now represented by his legal representatives namely, Mohan Lal Sevak and two others, has filed the present second appeal-being aggrieved by the concurrent decree of dispossession granted by the two Courts below in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs in respect of the house, a residential quarter, which belongs to the Diety, Padha Mataji Temple Trust and the plaintiffs Milap Chand S/o Banshi Lal Mathur, Shanker Lal S/o Mool Chand Bagaria-Agarwal and Chhagan Lal S/o Dhan Raj Sevak, claimed to be the Trustees of the said Temple and are interested persons in the Trust property filed the present Suit (No. 177/1987) for possession against the appellant-defendant Ramesh Chandra, who was allowed to live in the house in question by permissive possession given by the Trustees of the said Temple. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 10.9.1992 and the first appeal [No. 50/1999 (38/1992. 128/1992)] filed by the defendant-appellant Ramesh Chandra came to be dismissed on 21.9.2006 by the appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Deedwana. 2. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 10.9.1992 and the first appeal [No. 50/1999 (38/1992. 128/1992)] filed by the defendant-appellant Ramesh Chandra came to be dismissed on 21.9.2006 by the appellate Court of Additional District Judge, Deedwana. 2. The relevant facts of the case and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court on issue No. 1 are quoted herein below for ready reference:- rudh la[;k ,d dks izekf.kr djus dk Hkkj oknhx.k ij ,oa rudh la[;k pkj dks izekf.kr djus dk Hkkj izfroknhx.k ij j[kk x;k FkkA bl lEcU/k esa oknhx.k dk dFku gS fd mDr fookfnr edku Hkaojyky nthZ dks fdjk;s ij fn;k gqvk Fkk] ftldh e'R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k edku [kkyh gksus ij vLFkkbZ rkSj ij fu%'kqYd izfroknh dks jgus ds fy;s fn;k x;k] ftlls ckcr ,d bdjkjukek fnukad 17-10-1985 dks fy[kk x;k] tcfd izfroknhx.k dk dFku gS fd og bl edku esa fiNys rhl lkyksa ls jgrk vk jgk gSA bl lEcU/k esa oknhx.k us tks viuh lk{; is'k dh gS] mlesa ih0M0&1 xokg feykipUn ekFkqj dk dFku gS fd fookfnr lEifr ij dbZ ckj dCtk dkQZr fdjk;snkj ds Fkk] vafre fdjk;snkj Hkaojyky nthZ dk Fkk tks vdsyk jgrk FkkA Hkaojyky dh e'R;q gks xbZ rks mlds yM+ds txnh'k us edku [kkyh dj ekrkth dks lkSai fn;k vkSj bl ij ekrkth dk rkyk FkkA 1985 esa jes'k us eafnj ds O;oLFkkid ls dgk fd esjs edku esa esjh eka ?kqlus ugha nsrh gS] blfy;s ;g edku eq>s VsEizsjh :i ls ns nks] eSa ,d nks ekg esa [kkyh dj nwaxk vkSj fxMfxMkus yxk rks eSa Hkaojyky lsox us r; fd;k fd mlds jgus fn;k tk; rc mldks VsEizsjh :i ls fcuk fdjk;s jgus dh btktr nh vkSj jes'k us ijfelh its'ku dj ,d ykblsal dk :dk fy[kdj ns fn;k tks izn'kZ ,d gS] ftl ij ,0 ls ch0 nLr[kr jes'k ds gSA bl ykblsal ds tfj;s og edku esa jgus yxk] vkt rd og edku [kkyh ugha dj jgk gSA mlds ikl Lo;a dk jgus ds fy;s vPNk edku chl dne nwj gS tks ?kj dk gS vkSj mlh ls dCts esa gSA bl edku dk nf{k.kh fgLlk vHkh ekrkth dks gSA jes'k 1985 ds igys bl edku esa dHkh ugha jgkA ftjg esa bl lk{kh dk dke gS fd nkok djus ls igys izfroknh dks edku [kkyh djus dk uksfVl fn;k FkkA lk{kh ih0M0&2 }kjdkizlkn dk dFku gS fd bl edku esa izfroknh jes'kpUnz 5&6 o"kksZa ls jg jgk gSA jes'k ls iwoZ vafre fdjk;snkj Hkaojyky nthZ jgk FkkA izfroknh ykpkjh djus yxk] o dgk fd vki dgsaxs rc [kkyh dj nwaxkA vLFkkbZ rkSj ij eq>s ;gka jgus nksA mlus bdjkjukek izn'kZ&1 fy[kdj lfefr dks fn;kA izfroknh ls edku [kkyh djus dks dgk rks mlus euk dj fn;k rc ;g nkok fd;kA ftjg esa bl lk{kh dk dFku gS fd ;g ckr xyr gS fd izfroknh bl edku esa rhl o"kksZa ls jg jgk gksA Hkaojyky nthZ bl edku esa jgrk FkkA fookfnr edku ds ikl okys edku esa vHkh rd dksbZ ugha jgrk gSA ;g xyr gS fd bdjkjukek izn'kZ&1 iqfyl ds ncko ls fy[kk;k x;k gks cfYd izfroknh us Lor% fy[kk FkkA lk{kh ih0M0&3 nsoukjk;.k dk dFku gS fd fookfnr edku esa izfroknh jes'kpUnz djhc pkj ikap lkyksa ls jg jgk gS] mlds igys bl edku esa Hkaojyky jgrk FkkA jes'kpUnz us Hkaojyky lsox ls ,d eghus ds fy;s jgus dh btktr ekaxh vkSj jgus yx x;kA mldks lfefr ds lnL;ksa us edku [kkyh djus dks dgk rks [kkyh ugha fd;kA izfroknh us lfefr dks fy[kdj fn;k tks izn'kZ&1 gSA izfroknh ds [kqn dk fjgk;lh edku gSA lfefr okys bl edku dks uo fuekZ.k djokuk pkgrs gS] blfy;s [kkyh djokuk pkgrs gSA ftjg esa bl lk{kh dk dFku gS fd ;g xyr gS fd izfroknh bl edku esa rhl lkyksa ls jg jgk gksA ;g Hkh xyr gS fd izn'kZ&1 iqfyl ds ncko ls fy[kk;k gksA Hkaojyky nthZ dks tc edku fdjk;s ij fn;k gqvk Fkk] mldh HkkMk fpV~Bh gSA lk{kh ih0M0&4 fo".kqnr dk dFku gS fd fookfnr edku esa jes'k 1985 ls jgrk gSA jes'k ls iwoZ bl ekdu esa Hkaojyky nthZ jgrk FkkA Hkaojyky dh e'R;q gksus ds ckn mlds yM+ds us pkch lfefr dks laHkyk nhA 1985 esa jes'kpUnz tcju rkyk rksM+dj bl edku esa ?kql x;k] ml le; mlus fy[kki<+h djus dk dgk] mldks jgus dh btktr nh] mlus bdjkjuke izn'kZ&1 fy[kdj fn;kA okn esa izfroknh us lfefr okyksa us [kkyh djus dks dgk] D;ksafd izfroknh us vLFkkbZ rkSj ij fu%'kqYd jgus dks ekaxk FkkA izfroknh us edku [kkyh ugha fd;kA ;g ckr xyr gS fd izfroknh mldk firk fiNys rhl o"kksZa ls edku esa jg jgs gksA lk{kh ih0M0&5 gfj'kpUnz dk dFku gS fd ;g edku ekrkth ds eafnj dk gSA izfroknh djhc rhu pkj lkyksa ls bl edku esa jg jgk gSA eSa bl edku esa ,d fgLlk nf{k.k esa gS] mlesa 20&25 o"kZ rd fdjk;snkj jgk gwaA mDr edku dks eSaus vkt ls rhu lky igys eafnj okyksa dks laHkyk fn;kA jes'k ls igys bl edku esa Hkaojyky nthZ jgrk FkkA ;g ckr xyr gS fd izfroknh bl edku esa rhl lkyksa ls jg jgk gksA lk{kh ih0M0&6 jkexksiky dk dFku gS fd fookfnr edku eafnj dk gS] blesa vHkh 4&5 lkyksa ls izfroknh jes'kpUnz jgk gSA bl edku esa igys Hkaojyky nthZ jgrk FkkA ;g xyr gS fd izfroknh bl edku esa rhl o"kksZa ls jg jgk gksA bl eafnj esa ,d nqdku gekjs fdjk;s ij gSA igys esjs firkth fdjk;k nsrs] firkth 1986 xqtj x;sA lk{kh ih0M0&7 jktsUnzizlkn dk dFku gS fd izn'kZ&1 esa fy[kkoV 'kk[k lh ls Mh esjh Mkyh gqbZ gS rFkk bZ0 ls ,Q0 esjs gLrk{kdj gSA bl ij fy[kkoV fryksdpUn dh gS] ftlds gLrk{kj th0 ls ,p0 gSA ,d 'kk[k bl ij eqjyh/kj tks'kh gS tks vkbZ0 ls ts0 gSA bl fy[kkoV ij izfroknh ds gLrk{kj esjs lkeus gq, gSA mldh ds dgus ij ;g 'kk[k eSaus dpgjh esa MkyhA nLrkost jes'k esjs ikl ysdj vk;kA Vkbi fryksdpUn dk fd;k gqvk gSA lk{kh ih0M0&8 fryksdpUn dk dFku gS fd eSa i{kdkjksa dks tkurk gwaA izn'kZ&1 esjk VkbZi fd;k gqvk gS] ftl ij th0 ls ,p0 esjs gLrk{kj gSA ;g eSaus izfroknh jes'kpUnz ds dgus ls fy[kk] ftl ij ,0 ls ch0 gLrk{kj esjs lkeus jes'k us fd;sA ftjg esa bldk dFku gS fd ;g xyr gS fd fnukad 17-10-1985 dks jes'k Fkkuk esa gks] cfYd U;k;ky; ifjlj esa FkkA izn'kZ&1 fy[kr dks eSaus esjs jftLVj esa ,UV~h dh rFkk jes'k ds gLrk{kj Hkh djok;sA izfroknh dh lk{; Mh0M0&1 jes'k Lo;a izfroknh dk dFku gS fd eSaus tc ls gks'k laHkkyk] rc ls bl edku esa jgrk gwaA igys esjh ekrkth bl edku esa jgrh FkhA ftjg esa mDr dFkuksa ds ckcr bl lk{kh dk dFku gS fd vuarjke vks>k ds ?kj esa pksjh gq, nl ckjg lky gks x;sA ml pksjh dk eqdnek esjs ij pyk] ftldh vihy py jgh gSA mu fnuksa esa ikyh dke djrk Fkk] esjh vkSjr ml oDr esjs [kqn ds edku esa jgrh FkhA ftl edku dk >xM+k gS] mlesa eSaus Hkaojyky nthZ dks jgrs gq, ugha ns[kkA mlesa igys esjh eka jgrh FkhA ekrkth ds eafnj esa eq>s esjh eka us j[kok;k FkkA eq>s irk ugha fd esjh eka bl edku esa fdldh btktr ls jgrh FkhaA eSaus ukSdjh dh] ml le; esjh eka ds ikl dksbZ jgrk gks rks eq>s irk ugha gSA ukSdjh djds okil vk;k rks eq>s edku [kkyh feykA esjs ikl dksbZ futh edku ugha gSA eqruktk lEiw.kZ edku esa eSa pkyhl o"kksZa ls jgrk vk;k gwaA bl lk{kh ds mijksDr dFkuksa esa egRoiw.kZ fojks/kkHkkl gSA eq[; ijh{kk esa lk{kh ;g dFku djrk gS fd tc ls mlus gks'k laHkkyk] og rHkh ls bl edku esa jgrk gSA igys mldh eka bl edku esa jgrh FkhA tcfd ftjg esa bldk dFku gS fd bl ckjg o"kZ iwoZ tc vuarjke vks>k ds ?kj pksjh gqbZ mu fnuksa og ikyh esa jgrk Fkk rFkk ogh dke djrk FkkA mldh vkSjr ml oDr izfroknh ds [kqn ds edku esa jgrh FkhA Hkaojyky nthZ dks ml ekdu esa jgrs gq, ugha ns[kkA igys esjh eka jgrh Fkh vkSj bl l{kh dk dFku gS fd ukSdjh djds okil vk;k rks eq>s edku [kkyh feyk] esjs ikl dksbZ futh edku ugha gSA bl izdkj tgka ,d vksj ls ;g xokg dFku djrk gS fd mldh vkSjr mlds futh edku esa jgrh Fkh] ogh dFku djrk gS mlds ikl futh edku ugha gSA ,d rjQ ;g xokg dFku djrk gS fd pkyhl o"kksZa ls blh edku esa jgrk gSA nwljh vksj bldk dFku gS fd og nl ckjg lkyksa igys ikyh ukSdjh djrk FkkA ,d rjQ bldk dFku gS fd mldh eka bl edku esa jgrh tc og ukSdjh djrk Fkk vkSj nwljh rjQ bldk dFku gS fd tc ukSdjh djds okil vk;k rks mlds edku [kkyh feykA bl izdkj bl fcUnq ij bl xokg ds dFku fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrs gSA izfroknh dk dFku gS fd feykipUn us esjs ij >wBk eqdnek dj iqfyl esa cUn djokdj ,d [kkyh dkxt ij nLr[kr djok;sA fnukad 16-3-1985 dks feykipUn us ,d rgjhj fy[kdj nh tks] tks vly esa esjs ikl gS tks vkt ysdj ugha vk;kA bl ij bl xokg ds c;ku fjtoZ j[ks x;s o nqckjk tc blds c;ku izkjEHk gq, rks bl xokg dk dFku gS fd feykipUn us eq>s iqtkjh gksus ckcr tks fLyi fy[kdj nh og feyh ugha vFkkZr og fLyi U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha dh xbZ gSA eq[; ijh{kk esa ;g xokg ,d [kkyh dkxt ij feykipUn }kjk gLrk{kj djokuk dFku djrk gSA ftjg esa bl xokg dk dFku gS fd bdjkjukek dh bcknr eSaus ugha fy[kkbZ] esjs nLr[kr iqfyl us tsy esa djok;sA izn'kZ&1 ij ,0 ls ch0 nks LFkku ij gLrk{kdj esjs gSA LVkEi ysus ckcr gLrk{kj jftLVj esa gks ldrs gSaA tc bl xokg us LVkEi [kjhnk gh ugha rks jftLVj esa blds gLrk{kj fdl izdkj gks ldrs gSaA eSa fnukad 14-10-1985 ls 20-10-1985 rd tsy esa jgkA mDr nLrkost izn'kZ&1 17-10-1985 dk fy[kk gqvk gS vFkkZr izrhoknh ;g dguk pkgrk gS fd tc ;g nLrkost fy[kk x;k] ml le; og tsy esa FkkA fdUrq bl vk'k; dk dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; izfroknh }kjk izLrqr ugha dh xbZA bl xokg bl rF; ls Hkh bUdku djrk gS fd bdjkjukek izn'kZ&1 ij eqjyh Hkxoku o jktsUnz dh 'kk[kk MyokbZ rFkk fryksdpUn ls bdkjkjukek izn'kZ&1 ij eqjyh Hkxoku o jktsUnz dh 'kk[kk MyokbZ rFkk fryksdpUn ls bdjkjukek VkbZi djok;k gksA xokg Mh0M0&2 iwuepUn lsox dk dFku gS fd >xM+k okyk edku ekrkth ds eafnj dk gS] mlesa jes'k eSaus laHkkyk rHkh ls jgrk gSA jes'k ds vykok eSaus fookfnr edku esa fdlh dks jgrs ugha ns[kkA ftjg esa bl xokg dk dFku gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd jes'k dk [kqn dk futh edku Hkh MhMokuk esa gS] og vks>k dh xyh esa gSA jes'k ikyh jgk] bldk eq>s/;ku gSA og 5&6 o"kZ ls T;knk gks x;kA jes'k ikyh jgrk Fkk rc bldh eka >xM+k okys edku esa jgrh Fkh izn'kZ&1 ij gLrk{kj , ls ch nks txg o ds0 ls ,y0 jes'kpUnz ds fy, gq, gSA fdUrq gLrk{kjksa esa vUrj gSA ;g esjs dks irk ugha fd fooknxzLr edku esa ?kqlk rc ;g nLr[kr djok;s gksA bl izdkj ;g xokg jes'k dk ikyh esa ukSdjh djuk] jes'k ds ikl [kqn dk futh edku vks>k dh xyh esa gksuk dFku djrk gSA xokg Mh0M0&3 jkefuokl dk dFku gS fd fooknxzLr edku esa eSa] jes'k dks jgrs chl lkyksa ls ns[krk vk jgk gwaA eSa fpye ihus jkr ds le; jes'k ds ikl tkrk gwaA eSa cjkcj chl o"kksZa ls jes'k dks gh eafnj esa lsok iwtk djrk ns[kk gS] vU; dks ughaA eSaus jes'k dks MhMokuk NksM+dj tkrs ugha ns[kk tcfd Lo;a jes'k ikyh ukSdjh djuk Lohdkj djrk gS rFkk leLr xokgku ;g rF; Hkh Lohdkj djrs gS fd mDr eafnjksa esa pkj FkEcs gS o pkj Fecksa ds pkj iqtkjh gSa tks ckjh ckjh ls iwtk djrs gSa tcfd ;g lk{kh dsoy jes'k }kjk chl lkyksa ls yxkrkj iwtk djuk ns[krk vk jgk gwaA eSa fpye ihus jkr ds le; jes'k ds ikl tkrk gwaA eSa cjkcj chl o"kksZa ls jes'k dks gh eafnj esa lsok iwtk djuk dFku djrk gSA eSaus eafnj esa dksbZ lksus ds tsojkr gks rks ugha ns[kk] tcfd lHkh lk{khx.k eafnj esa lksus ds tsojkr gksuk Lohdkj djrs gSaA bdjkjukek eafnj esa jgus ds fy;s jes'k us fy[kdj fn;k gks rks eq>s irk ugha gSA lk{kh Mh0M0&4 jkefuokl dk dFku gS fd fookfnr edku esa jes'k jgrk gS rFkk jes'k gh ekrkth ds eafnj dh lsok iwtk djrk gSA eafnj dh lsok iwtk jes'kpUnz vkfn ckjh ckjh ls djrs gSA ftjg esa bldk dFku gS fd ekrkth ds lksus ds vkHkw"k.k iqtkjh j[krk Fkk] ftudh ckjh vkrh gS mUgha dks laHkyk nsrsA jes'k us ikyh ikyh esa ukSdjh dh] fdrus o"kZ igys dh] eq>s/;ku ugha gSA ;g xyr gS fd jes'k dk Lo;a dk edku dksV ekSgYyk esa gksA jes'k tc ikyh esa ukSdjh djrk Fkk] ml le; bl ekdu esa dkSu jgrk Fkk] eq>s ekywe ugha gSA fookfnr edku ds rhu pkj gd esa jes'k jgrk FkkA iwjs edku esa jgrk ;k ugha eq>s irk ugha gSA eq>s tkudkjh ugha fd jes'k 5&6 o"kksZa esa V~LVhx.k dks iwNdj ogka jgrk gSA eq>s irk ugha fd vkt ls 8&10 o"kZ igys pDdh ds ikl okys fookfnr edku esa Hkaojyky nthZ jgrk gksA bl izdkj bl lk{kh us bl rF; ls bUdkj ugha fd;k fd fookfnr edku esa vkB nl lky igys Hkaojyky jgrk Fkk rFkk jes'k 5&6 lky ls V~fLV;ksa ls iwNdj bl ekdu esa jgus yxk gksA bl izdkj izLrqr lk{; ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd jes'k izfroknh tks fd vkB nl lkyksa iwoZ ikyh ukSdjh djrk Fkk] ikyh ls vk;k rc bl edku esa jgus yxkA bl rF; dk izfroknh ds vykok vU; fdlh lk{kh us leFkZu ugha fd;k fd izfroknh dh eka 'kq: ls bl edku esa jgrh vkbZ gks] vfirq Lo;a izfroknh dk dFku gS fd tc og ikyh ls ykSVk rks mls edku [kkyh feykA nLrkost izn'kZ&1 bdjkjukek oknhx.k }kjk iw.kZ :i ls izekf.kr fd;k x;k gSA lk{kh ih0M0&8 tgka bldk fy[kuk Lohdkj djrk gS] ogha mlds le{k jes'kpUnz ds ,0 ls ch0 gLrk{kj fd;k tkuk dFku djrk gSA xokg ih0M0&7 jktsUnzizlkn bl ij Lo;a }kjk 'kk[k Mkyuk o eqjyh/kj }kjk 'kk[k Mkyuk dFku djrk gSA bl izdkj mDr nLrkost c[kwch izekf.kr gSA izn'kZ&1 bdjkjukek esa ;g vafdr gS fd fookfnr edku ftlls igys Hkaojyky nthZ jgrk Fkk mlesa fcuk iwNs jgus yxk] exj vc eSaus eafnj ds V~LVhx.k ls fu%'kqYd jgus dh btktr yhA tc Hkh eafnj ds V~LVhx.k bls [kkyh djkuk pkgs] eSa fcuk fdlh mtj ds [kkyh djds lkSaius dks ikcan jgwaxkA mDr nLrkost ds vk/kkj ij ;g Li"V gS fd izfroknh bl edku esa fdjk;snkj dh gSfl;r ls ugha jg jgk gS cfYd ykbZlsalh gSA ogha ih0M0&1 us viuh lk{; esa dFku fd;k gS fd nkok djus ls igys izfroknh dks edku [kkyh djus dk uksfVl fn;kA fygktk izfroknh ,d ykblsalh dh gSfl;r ls edku esa jg jgk gS mls tqckuh o uksfVl }kjk edku [kkyh djus dh lwpuk nh xbZA izLrqr lk{; ls ;g rF; Hkh izekf.kr ugha gqvk fd izfroknh bl edku esa rhu o"kksZa ls jg jgk gksA vr% izfroknh ls fookfnr edku [kkyh djkus o dCtk ikus ds oknhx.k vf/kdkjh gSA fygktk rudh la[;k 1 o 4 cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknh fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSA 3. The relevant portion of the discussion made by the learned trial Court on the issue relating to applicability of Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 which contains a bar against jurisdiction of the civil Court is also quoted below for ready reference:- " fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh us nkSjkus cgk ;g dFku fd;k gS fd pwafd ;g yksd U;kl gS fdUrq iathd'r ugha gS] fygktk/kkjk 29 ifCyd U;kl V~LV vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr mDr nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k us bl ij vkifRr dh fd izfroknh }kjk mBk;k x;k ;g fcUnq u rks mlds tokcnkok esa gS vkSj u gh bl ij dksbZ rudh cuh gS rFkk u gh cgl vafre ls iwoZ mls bl ckcr lwpuk nh xbZ rFkk ugha mDr izko/kku bl izdj.k ij ykxw gksrs gSaA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k dk dFku gS fd/kkjk 29 jktLFkku ifCyd V~LV vf/kfu;e ds rgr viathd'r V~LV }kjk nkok djus ls fooftZr gS] fdUrq ;g nkok V~LV }kjk fd;k x;k] vfirq 5 oknhx.k }kjk tks mDr V~LV esa fgr j[krs gS] }kjk fd;k x;k gSA vr%/kkjk 29 jktLFkku ifCyd V~LV vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku bl izdj.k esa ykxw ugha gksrs gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k dk bl lEcU/k esa nwljk rdZ ;g gS fd/kkjk 29 ifCyd V~LV vf/kfu;e esa ;g izko/kku dk lkj gS fd V~LV ftldk iathd'r gksuk vko';d gS] ;fn iathd'r ugha gS rks ;g nkok ysus ls fooftZr gksxkA vr% bl izdj.k esa ;g Hkkj izfroknh ij Fkk fd og ;g izekf.kr djrs fd V~LV ds lHkh vfuok;Zrk,a iwjh djrk gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij bldk iathdj.k gksuk vko';d FkkA vko';drk,a V~LV dh okf"kZd vk; de ls de rhu gtkj :i;s vFkok mldh dqy lEifr dh dher rhl gtkj ls vf/kd gksuk vko';d gSA V~LV dh lEifRr dk ewY;kadu nsoLFkku ds vf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknh }kjk ,slk dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;k fd V~LV dh okf"kZd vk; rhu gtkj vFkok mldh dqy lEifRr ls rhu gtkj ls vf/kd gksA fygktk mDr nLrkosth lk{; ds vHkko esa ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd mDr V~LV dk iathdj.k djokuk vko';d FkkA eSa fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k ds dFku ls lger gwa fd mDr fcUnq u rks izfroknh ds tokcnkok esa gS vkSj u gh bl fcUnq ij rudh cuhA mDr nkok oknhx.k }kjk mDr lEifRr esa fgr j[krs gq, is'k fd;k gS u fd ik<+kekrk eafnj dh gSfl;r ls is'k dh xbZ gSA mDr eafnj dh okf"kZd vk;k rhu gtkj :i;s o eafnj dh dqy lEifr rhl gtkj ls vf/kd ugha gSA fygktk mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij rudh la[;k 3 cgd oknhx.k ,oa fo:) izfroknh fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSA " 4. The objection regarding suit falling within the ambit and scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dealt with by the learned first appellate Court, while deciding issue No. 8 that Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The relevant portion of the discussion made by the learned first appellate Court is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- " gekjs }kjk/kkjk 92 lh0ih0lh0 dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA/kkjk 92 lh0ih0lh0 mldh n'kk esa ykxw gksxh tgka/kkfeZd U;kl ds chp dk ekeyk gks vFkok rks U;k;ky; dh jk; esa U;kl ds iz'kklu gsrq ,MoksdsV tujy ;k nks O;fDr;ksa }kjk nkok is'k djuk vko';d gksA izLrqr dsl ds rF;ksa ij xkSj fd;k tkos rks izdV gksxk fd ;g nkok U;kl ds chp dk ugha gSA bl ekeys esa ,slh dksbZ ifjfLFkfr Hkh ugha gSA ftlesa ;g nkok is'k djus iwoZ/kkjk 92 lh0ih0lh0 esa mYysf[kr btktr izkIr djuk vko';d gksA blds vykok/kkjk 92 lh0ih0lh0 esa mu izdkj dh fMdzh izkIr djus gsrq lacaf/kr flfoy U;k;ky; dh vuqefr dh vko';drk gSA izLrqr dsl lEifRr dh dCts;kch dk gS tks/kkjk 92 ds lcDykst , ls th esa mYyf[kr fMdzh ls doj ugha gksrk gSA lkj ;gh gS fd izLrqr ekeys esa/kkjk 92 lh0ih0lh0 ds izko/kku ykxw ugha gksrs gSaA " 5. The learned counsel Mr. Arpit Bhoot appearing for the appellants-defendants-Ramesh Chandra submitted that a substantial question of law arises in the present case requiring consideration by this Court in the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure about the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court to deal with the present suit, as the Trust in question was not a registered Public Trust under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and, therefore, the present suit was not maintainable and since the present suit was not fulfilling the requirements of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, the said substantial question of law was required to be decided in favour of the appellants-defendants and the suit for possession could not be decreed. He also submitted that the Trust in question was bound to be registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act and, therefore, in view of the admitted position that the trust was not so registered, the question of maintainability of the suit goes to the root of the matter and in view of Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if these questions are not raised before the Courts below, he sought to raise before this Court at this stage. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shehla Burney (Dr.) & Ors. v. Syed Ali Mossa Raza (Dead) by LRs & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 529 , Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. v. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 136 and Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 216 . 6. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Parihar appearing for the respondent-plaintiff-decree-holder submitted that no substantial question of law arises in the present case and the concurrent findings recorded by the both the Courts below about the original defendant Ramesh Chandra and now his Legal Representatives having no right to continue in the possession of the house in question belonging to the Padha Mataji Temple Trust and the suit in question was rightly tried and decided by the learned trial Court while dealing with the issues regarding jurisdiction of the Court and the issues now sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants at this stage have already been dealt with the Courts below and the same issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents based on sound reason and legal position. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bishwanath & Anr. v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1044 . The relevant portion of the discussion made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in para 7 of the judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "7. It is settled law that to invoke Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 3. The relevant portion of the discussion made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in para 7 of the judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "7. It is settled law that to invoke Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 3. conditions have to be satisfied, namely : (i) the trust is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature : (ii) there was a breach of trust or a direction of Court is necessary in the administration of such a trust, and (iii) the relief claimed is one or other of the reliefs enumerated therein. If any of the 3 condition is not satisfied, the suit falls outside the scope of the said section. A suit by an idol for a declaration of its title to property and for possession of the same from the defendant, who is in possession thereof under a void alienation, is not one of the reliefs found in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That a suit for declaration that a property belongs to a trust is held to fall outside the scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Privy Council in Abdur Rahim v. Abu Mahomed Barkat Ali, (, 55 Ind App 96 : AIR 1928 PC 16 ) , and by this Court in Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji v. Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai, 1952 SCR 513 : ( AIR 1952 SC 143 ) , on the ground that a relief for declaration is not one of the reliefs enumerated in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, So too, for the same reason a suit for a declaration that certain properties belong to a trust and for possession thereof from the alienee has also been held to be not covered by the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure: See Mukhda Mannudas Bairagi v. Chagan Kisan Bhawasar, (, ILR (1957 Bom 809: AIR 1959 Bom 491 ). Other decisions have reached the same result on a different ground namely, that such a suit is one for the enforcement of a private right. Other decisions have reached the same result on a different ground namely, that such a suit is one for the enforcement of a private right. It was held that a suit by an idol as a juristic person against persons who interfered unlawfully with the property of the idol was a suit for enforcement of its private right and was, therefore, not a suit to which Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied: See ( Darshan Lal v. Shibji Maharaj Birajman, (, ILR 45 All 215 : AIR 1923 All 120) : and Madhavrao Anandrao v. Shri Omkareshvar Ghat, 31 Bom LR 192, AIR 1929 Bom 153. The present suit is filed by the idol for possession of its property from the person who is in illegal possession thereof and, therefore, it is a suit by the idol to enforce its private right. The suit also is for a declaration of the plaintiffs title and for possession thereof and is, therefore, not a suit for one of the reliefs mentioned in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In either view, this is a suit outside the purview of Section 92 of the said Code and, therefore, the said section is not a bar to its maintainability." 7. The learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Parihar for the plaintiffs-respondents also contended that since no specific pleadings were made by the defendant regarding maintainability of the suit before the learned trial Court, therefore, the objection now sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the defendants on the anvil of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding registration of the Public Trust, could not be permitted to be raised by the defendants at this stage now in the present second appeal and emphasising for proper and categorical pleadings in the suit and the written statement of the defendant before the learned trial Court, such type of objection cannot be raised. To support the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Parihar relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr., 2009 (1) Apex Court judgments 656 (SC). The relevant portion of the discussion made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 and 10 of its judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "9. Rajesh Parihar relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Anr., 2009 (1) Apex Court judgments 656 (SC). The relevant portion of the discussion made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 and 10 of its judgment is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "9. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the Court for its consideration. This Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings are meant to give to each side intimation of the case of the other so that it may be met, to enable Courts to determine what is realty at issue between the parties, and to prevent any deviation from the course which litigation on particular causes must take. 10. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the Courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the Court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a claim or relief. Therefore, the Court cannot, on finding that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant some other relief. The question before a Court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the Court could not be granted. The question before a Court is not whether there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted, when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the Court could not be granted. When there is no prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such a relief and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or oppose such a relief, if the Court considers and grants such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief" 8. The learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Parihar appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents also submitted that the objections and issues were even sought to be raised by the defendants by filing an amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned trial Court below have failed even up to this Court as mentioned in the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, while dismissing the first appeal filed by the defendant. The learned counsel Mr. Arpit Bhoot appearing for the appellants-defendants does not dispute this position. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length and perused the records of the case including the judgments cited by the learned counsels at bar. 10. This Court is of the clear and considered opinion that the questions sought to be raised by the learned counsel Mr. Arpit Bhoot appearing for the appellants-defendants even though might be questions of law arising from the orders of the Courts below but they are neither the substantial questions of law nor they can be said to be such questions going to the root of the matter in the present second appeal filed under Section 100 read with Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure at this stage. 11. 11. Firstly, this Court is convinced that the present suit filed before the learned trial Court by the Trustees of the Padha Mataji Temple Trust on behalf of the idol or the persons interested in the trust property seeking possession of the house in question illegally in possession of the defendant-Ramesh Chandra was not a suit falling within the ambit and scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is quoted herein below for ready reference:-- "92. Public charities.--(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the [leave of the Court,] may institute a suit, whether contentious or not in the principal Civil Court of original Jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situated to obtain a decree-- (a) removing any trustee: (b) appointing a new trustee: (c) vesting any property in a trustee: [(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled and inquiries: (d) directing accounts and inquiries: (e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust. (f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged: (g) settling a scheme: or (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. 2................................................................................................ 3................................................................................................" 12. (f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged: (g) settling a scheme: or (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. 2................................................................................................ 3................................................................................................" 12. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is very much clear that Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of charitable or religious nature or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust and then, the locus has been vested with the Advocate-General or with two or more persons having an interest but they are required to obtain the leave of the Court for instituting such suit. It is further clear from the bare reading of the aforesaid Section, that the suit filed, either by the Advocate-General or two or more persons, can be for specific purposes only as mentioned in Clause (1) of the said Section 92. It is noticed that Clause (cc) inserted by the Act No. 66 of 1956, a suit can be filed for directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has been ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with a case, namely Bishwanath & Anr. v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji & Ors., reported in, AIR 1967 SC 1044 , while giving reference to various other rulings given by the Privy Council and other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has clearly laid down that suit for possession filed by the idol through persons interested in such property is a suit to enforce his private rights and it does no fall within the ambit and scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This case law settles the legal position beyond any pale of doubt and squarely applies to the facts of the present case and, therefore, there is little force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants Mr. Arpit Bhoot that suit having not been filed after duly complying with the requirements of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be rejected. Arpit Bhoot that suit having not been filed after duly complying with the requirements of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is required to be rejected. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly is rejected 14. Coming to the next contention about the bar of Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. 1959 to be applied against the present suit, the answer has to be again in negative and against the defendants. The reason is simple that the Trust in question is not a registered Public Trust under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. There is no mandatory requirement that every trust is required to be compulsorily registered under the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. 1959 requiring that such temple, trusts and the properties of deity, being dealt with by a trust are mandatory required to the registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act. 1959. The definition of the 'Public Trust" as defined in Clause (11) of Section 2, the definition of "Temple" as defined in Clause (16) of Section 2 read with Chapter V containing Sections 16 to 18 about registration of such Public Trust do not envisage any such compulsory registration of all the Public Trusts. Besides this, the requirement of trusts having minimum value of properties has to be satisfied and only such trusts can apply for registration under Sections 16 and 17 of the said Act of 1959. The relevant definitions, provisions relating to registration of a Public Trust and Section 29 about bar against civil suits by unregistered Public Trust are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-- "Section 2--Definitions: 11. "Public trust" means an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment or institution and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both: 13. "Public trust" means an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment or institution and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both: 13. "Religious endowment" or "endowment" means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of a religious institution or given or endowed for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of the religious institution as well as the idols, if any installed therein and any public charity associated with a festival or observance of a religious character, whether connected with a religious institution or not, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the trustee or hereditary trustee or working trustee of such institution or to any service-holder or other employee thereof: 16. "Temple" means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by a community or any section thereof as a place of public religious worship" 17. "Trustee" means a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons the trust property is vested and includes a manager: 18. "Working trustee" means any person who, for the time being, either alone or in association with some other person or persons administers the trust property of any public trust and includes the manager of a public trust as well as-- (a) in the case of a math, the head of such math, and (b) in the case of a public trust having its principal office or principal place of business outside the State of Rajasthan the person in charge of the management of the property and administration of the public trust in the State. Section 17 : Registration of public trusts.-- (1) Within three months from the date of the application of this section to a public trust or from the date on which a public trust is created whichever is later, the working trustee thereof shall apply to a Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction for the registration of such public trust (2) The Assistant Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the period prescribed by sub-sec, (1) for the making of an application for registration by not more than two years. (3) Each such application shall be accompanied by such fee if any, not exceeding five rupees, and to be utilised for such purpose, as may be prescribed. (3) Each such application shall be accompanied by such fee if any, not exceeding five rupees, and to be utilised for such purpose, as may be prescribed. (4) The application shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall contain the following particulars, namely:-- (i) the origin (so for as known), nature and object of the public trust and the designation by which the public trust is or shall be known; (ii) the place where the principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situate; (iii) the name and addresses of the working trustee and the manager; (iv) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee; (v) the list of the movable and immovable trust property and such description and particulars as may be sufficient for the identification thereof: (vi) the approximate value of the movable and immovable property; (vii) the gross average annual income derived from movable and immovable property and from other source, if any, based on the actual gross annual income during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made or of the period which has elapsed since the creation of the trust, whichever period shorter, and in the case of a newly created public trust the estimated gross annual income from all such sources; (viii) the amount of the average annual expenditure in connection with such public trust estimated on the expenditure incurred within the period to which the particulars under clause (vii) relate, and in the case of a newly created public trust, the estimated annual expenditure in connection with such public trust; (ix) the address to which and communication to the working trustee or manager in connection with the public trust may be sent: (x) such other particulars as may be prescribed, Provided that the rules made may provide that in the case of any or all public trusts it shall be necessary to give the particulars of the trust property of such value and kind as may be specified therein. (5) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be signed and verified in accordance with the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) for signing and verifying plaints. (5) Every application made under sub-section (1) shall be signed and verified in accordance with the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908) for signing and verifying plaints. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the instrument of trust (if such instrument has been executed and is in existence) and, where the trust property includes immovable property entered in a record of rights, a copy of the relevant entries relating to such property in such record of rights shall also be enclosed. It shall be accompanied by a copy of the instrument of trust (if such instrument has been executed and is in existence) and, where the trust property includes immovable property entered in a record of rights, a copy of the relevant entries relating to such property in such record of rights shall also be enclosed. (6) No Assistant Commissioner shall proceed with any application for the registration of a public trust in respect of which an application for registration has been filed previously before any other Assistant Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first shall decide which Assistant Commissioner shall have jurisdiction to register the public trust (7) An appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner before whom the application was filed first, give under sub-section (6) may be filed within sixty days before the Commissioner and, subject to the decision on such appeal, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner under sub-section (6) shall be final, Section 18 - Inquiry for Registration.--(1) On receipt of an application under Sec 17 or upon an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion, the Assistant Commissioner shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining: (i) whether a trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust: (ii) whether any property is the property' of such trust; (iii) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject matter of the trust is situate within his Jurisdiction: (iv) the names and addresses of the working trustee and the manager of such trust: (v) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust; (vi) the origin, nature and object of such trust; (vii) the amount of gross average annual income and expenditure of such trust: and (viii) The correctness or otherwise of any other particulars furnished under sub-section (4) of Section 17." (2) The Assistant Commissioner shall give in the prescribed-manner public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under sub-section (1) and invite all persons having interest in the public trust under inquiry to prefer within sixty days objections, if any, in respect of such trust. Section 19 : Finding of Assistant Commissioner. Section 19 : Finding of Assistant Commissioner. On completion of the inquiry provided for under Section 18, the Assistant Commissioner shall record his findings with the reasons therefor as to the matters mentioned in the said section. Section 20 : Appeal.--Any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or in any property found to be trust property aggrieved by a finding of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19 may, within two months from the date of its publication on the notice board of the Assistant Commissioner, file an appeal before the Commissioner to have such finding set aside or modified. Section 29 : Bar against suits by unregistered trust: (1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which is required to be registered under the Act but has not been so registered shall be heard or decided in any Court. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply to a claim of set off or other proceedings to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust." 15. None of the provisions quoted above spells about any such compulsory registration of all the trusts and it is only on the application filed by the Public Trusts falling within the said definitions and fulfilling the requirements of minimum value of trust property and minimum annual income, which upon their application subject of fulfillment of the requirement so stipulated there they can be registered after due inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the said Act of 1959 and thereafter, they shall be regulated by the relevant provisions of the Act of 1959. The trial Court in the present case, while deciding the issue No. 3 has returned a categoric finding that the trust in question in the present case was not required to be registered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 as the property being owned by it was less than the prescribed limit of Rs. 30,000/- and, therefore, the objection regarding registration of the trust in question as raised by the learned counsel Mr. Arpit Bhoot for the appellants-defendants is neither tenable nor legally sustainable much less, requiring any adjudication by framing of a substantial question of law at this stage which contention even though was not raised before the learned Courts below, therefore, the objection fails and is hereby rejected. 16. Arpit Bhoot for the appellants-defendants is neither tenable nor legally sustainable much less, requiring any adjudication by framing of a substantial question of law at this stage which contention even though was not raised before the learned Courts below, therefore, the objection fails and is hereby rejected. 16. As far as the findings of facts recorded by both the learned Courts below are concerned particularly, the finding, that the defendant Ramesh Chandra had no right to retain the possession of the house in question, they are pure findings of fact and, therefore, this Court cannot upset the same in jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Court {Sic Procedure). It is noticed that the original defendant Ramesh Chandra, who was put in the permissive possession in the house in question by the original Pujari Bhanwar Lal Darji, who himself was a Pujari of the said temple with the clear understanding that within a month or two, he will hand over the vacant possession of the house in question, the said Ramesh Chandra was allowed only temporarily to reside in the said house in question on his request that since he had been ousted from his own house by his mother and in these circumstances, he had no place to live. On such a request, the sad Ramesh Chandra was given only a permissive possession of the house in question but having failed to hand over the vacant possession of the house in question to the trustees or to the persons having interest in the property of the trust, the present suit has been filed on behalf of the idol to enforce its private rights, which suit has been concurrently decreed by the learned two Courts below. In this view of the matter, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below based on sound reasoning and relevant evidence and the same are binding on this Court and in the absence of any perversity in such findings of facts by learned two Courts below, no substantial question of law can be said to be arising for consideration in the present second appeal of the defendant. 17. 17. Accordingly and on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present second appeal filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant Ramesh Chandra is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, as no substantial question of law arises out of the judgments of the learned Courts below for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties and the learned Trial Court concerned forthwith. In the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the appellants-defendants shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the house in question to the respondents-plaintiffs within a period of three months from today i.e. on or before 31.5.2015 and shall pay mesne profit @ Rs. 2000/- per month [Rupees Two Thousand only] commencing from March, 2015 and will further continue to pay the mesne profit each month by 15th day of the next succeeding month or in advance to the respondents/plaintiffs also and in case there is any default in payment of mesne profit, the period of three months for eviction shall stand reduced and the decree of eviction would become executable forthwith. The appellants/defendants shall also clear all the arrears of rent and mesne profit as fixed by the Courts below and pay the same to the respondent/plaintiff within three months from today, otherwise the same will bear simple interest @9% per annum. The appellants/defendants shall also not sub let assign or part with the possession of the suit house or any part thereof in favour of any one else and would not create any third party interest in the same during the aforesaid period and if it is so done, the same would be treated as void and this decree will bind any such third party also. The appellants-defendants shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial Court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. The appellants-defendants shall furnish a written undertaking incorporating the aforesaid conditions in the trial Court within one month and one copy thereof along with affidavit, in this Court. It is made clear that if the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises is not handed over to the respondents-plaintiffs within a period of three months from today or mesne profits are not paid as directed above, besides the expeditious execution of the decree in normal course, the respondent plaintiff shall also be entitled to invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Courts below and parties concerned forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******