Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 51 (UTT)

MAA CHANDI DEVI TEMPLE TRUST v. ROHIT GIRI

2015-01-20

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. The above titled appeal and civil revision are being adjudicated together as both have arisen out of the same impugned judgment dated 17.11.2014 rendered by the Ist Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 77/2014. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking injunction against the defendants no. 1 to 3 restraining them from interfering in the administration of Maa Chandi Devi Temple Trust (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘MCDTT’) nay the declaration was also sought against defendants no. 1 to 3 that the latter do not have any concern with the said Chandi Devi Temple or its properties nor they are entitled to receive any offerings/gifts made to the Shrine. Defendant no. 4 to 9 in the suit filed their written statement accepting almost all the averments of the plaintiffs with a counter claim asserting that in the said offerings/gifts, they had share to the extent of 3 aanas out of 16 aanas. They accepted the existence of MCDTT with the averment that Mr. Ravi Giri (defendant no. 9) is the son of defendant no. 4 Dinesh Giri. So, he along with his son has the share to the extent as above in the entire offerings/gifts made by the devotees at the Shrine. During the pendency of this suit, an ad interim injunction was sought by way of moving the application 7C under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code which was objected by the defendants no. 1 to 3 by way of filing the objection 97C. These defendants 1 to 3, besides objecting the issuance of ad interim injunction, moved an application 93C under order 7 Rule 1 CPC with the prayer seeking rejection of the plaint and the same was resisted by way of filing the objections 94C. 2. Both these applications, viz. 7C and 93C, moved by the parties have been adjudicated by the Trial Court vide the impugned judgment. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by MCDTT through its President Mahant Ram Puri, while Mr. Rohit Giri claiming himself as the Chief Lifetime Trustee of the separate trust in the name and style of Maa Chandi Devi Mandir Parmarth Trust (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘MCDMPT’) has filed the above titled civil revision. 3. I have heard learned Counsel of both the parties at considerable length and perused the record. 4. Rohit Giri claiming himself as the Chief Lifetime Trustee of the separate trust in the name and style of Maa Chandi Devi Mandir Parmarth Trust (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘MCDMPT’) has filed the above titled civil revision. 3. I have heard learned Counsel of both the parties at considerable length and perused the record. 4. It transpires that the dispute cropped up between the parties after passing of the judgment dated 3.1.2012 by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) N0. 02/2011, J.P. Badoni v. State of Uttarakhand & Others. That PIL was basically filed with regard to the management of Ganga Sabha and Har Ki Pauri, Haridwar. However, eventually the judgment also took in its purview the affairs of Maa Chandi Devi Temple and Mansa Devi Temple. I would like to produce the paragraphs 4 and 6 of that judgment and the same read as under: “4. There is no dispute that both Chandi Devi Temple and Mansa Devi Temple are ancient temples carrying ancient Hindu heritage associated with them. In the passage of time the management and administration of these temples vested in the trustees, who discharge duties and responsibilities vested in trustees of public religious and charitable trusts. It is also true that the trustees of these trusts do collect donations in the form of offerings given to the deities installed in these temples and also donations given otherwise. 6. In the circumstances, for the present, while we direct removal of donation boxes installed by Ganga Sabha or by the trustees of the said temples, but permit them to collect donations against receipts to be issued by the trustees thereof. Ganga Sabha and the trustees of those temples shall maintain proper account of such donations collected as well as offerings given to the deities of those two temples either in cash or in the form of valuable materials. They shall use those collections only for charitable and religious purposes and for no other purpose. For the purpose of ensuring that the said responsibilities are duly discharged, we direct Ganga Sabha and the trustees of the said two trusts to co-opt the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police of Hardwar, in their ex officio capacity, to the trusts. For the purpose of ensuring that the said responsibilities are duly discharged, we direct Ganga Sabha and the trustees of the said two trusts to co-opt the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police of Hardwar, in their ex officio capacity, to the trusts. The District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hardwar are directed to ensure that the accounts of collections and disbursement of these three institutions are correctly and appropriately reflected in their respective accounts and those are spent for charitable and religious purposes and for no other purpose.” 5. Under the garb of the aforesaid judgment of Division Bench of this Court, Mr. Rohit Giri, who once had got MCDMPT registered on 31.10.2009, claimed himself as the sole Managing Trustee of the said Shrine along with his wife Smt. Geetanjali as the Member Trustee. This attempt of Mr. Rohit Giri was intended to keep away the plaintiffs and the rest of the defendants from participating in the management of the affairs including receiving of gifts/offerings made to the Shrine. Such attempt of Rohit Giri offended Mahant Ram Puri and rest of his three brothers, Mahant Sanjay Prakash Puri, Mahant Ram Prakash Puri and Mahant Srikant Puri @ Umakant Puri. So, these Puri brothers instituted an Original Suit No. 62/2012 on 9.4.2012 claiming themselves to be the real trustees of this constructive trust because hitherto they did not ever get their trust registered in an express way. When the ad interim injunction was refused in that Original Suit No. 62/2012, they filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 102/2012. While that miscellaneous appeal was still pending, Sanjay Prakash Puri (real brother of Mahant Ram Puri) moved a Miscellaneous Application No. 785 on 5.10.2012 in PIL No. 02/2011 asking clarification from the Division Bench with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this application and the order dated 3.1.2012 may be clarified to the extent that “Maa Chandi Devi Mandir Parmarth Trust,” which is trust constituted by Rohit Giri has no right to co-opt District Magistrate as member of trust and thus, has no right to receive donations, offerings in its favour by virtue of order dated 3.1.2012. It may also be clarified that this Hon’ble Court has not decided any rights inter-se different constituent of committee which consists of decedents of Mahant Ganga Puri and Mahant Ragunath Giri.” 6. A similar Miscellaneous Application No. 829/2012 was moved by Mr. Rohit Giri in the selfsame PIL with the following prayer: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue appropriate directions:- (A) to the District Magistrate and S.S.P., Haridwar to ensure the strict compliance of the Judgment dated 03.01.2012 passed in the instant PIL and ensure that no one including Srikant Puri, Ram Puri, Ram Prakash Puri, Sanjay Prakash Puri, all S/o Late Dayal Giri and their sons as well as Dinesh Giri S/o Hoshiyar Giri and his sons be restrained from interfering in day to day functioning of the trust of the temple and submit compliance report before this Hon’ble Court. (B) to the District Magistrate and S.S.P., Haridwar to give full assistance and support to the trust for installing street lights, water tanks, teen sheds, toilets and bathrooms for giving facility to the devotees in the forthcoming Navratra Festivals. (C) to the Electricity Department for restoration of the electricity connections, which was provided and sanctioned for 62 street lights and also bill boards, with immediate effect for which already the trust has deposited Rs.12,000/- as electricity fee on 07th September, 2012. (D) to the District Magistrate and S.S.P., Haridwar to give full protection to the office bearers of the trust. and/or to pass any such other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper otherwise the respondent no.12 will suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 7. Both these Miscellaneous Applications No. 785 and 829 were taken up together by the PIL Court and after hearing the learned Counsel, following order was passed: “In the event, in the functioning of the trust, anyone stands in the way, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police are directed to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against him. Both these Miscellaneous Applications No. 785 and 829 were taken up together by the PIL Court and after hearing the learned Counsel, following order was passed: “In the event, in the functioning of the trust, anyone stands in the way, the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police are directed to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against him. It is made clear that, in relation to any dispute as to who is entitled to be a private member of the Trust, the matter may be decided in the suit, but, it is made clear that we have already held that it is a public religious trust and, accordingly, all its assets, properties, incomes can only be utilised for public religious purposes and for no other purpose. Both the Miscellaneous Applications are, accordingly, disposed of.” 8. Since Mr. Rohit Giri and his wife Smt. Geetanjali Giri had moved a letter to the District Magistrate and the SSP of Haridwar asking their co-option in his trust in compliance of the order dated 3.1.2012, therefore, they further took undeserved advantage at the strength of the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by the said Division Bench of this Court, and the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of the District Haridwar also, in complete misconstruction of the aforesaid two orders, began to recognize the trust of Mr. Rohit Giri and his young wife, just running in the age of twenties, as the only trust governing the Maa Chandi Devi Shrine and began to provide the aid, assistance and shelter to Mr. Rohit Giri and his wife to the exclusion of Puri brothers from the affairs of such Shrine. Thus, Mr. Rohit Giri could become successful in his nefarious design to grab the entire administration including all the offerings/gifts made by the devotees at the holly Shrine. He, thus, ousted all the Puri brothers besides Mahant Dinesh Giri and his son Ravi Giri, who had claimed their 3/16 share in the management. 9. Thus, Mr. Rohit Giri could become successful in his nefarious design to grab the entire administration including all the offerings/gifts made by the devotees at the holly Shrine. He, thus, ousted all the Puri brothers besides Mahant Dinesh Giri and his son Ravi Giri, who had claimed their 3/16 share in the management. 9. Though it is not desirable for this Court to enter in the controversy between the parties by way of examining each and every paper/record/evidence filed by them so far, in the Original Suit No. 77/2014 because if each and every document is meticulously discussed and examined by this Court while adjudicating these two captioned matters, then nothing will be left there for the Trial Court to decide contrary to the findings and opinion of this Court, and indirectly the suit will stood adjudicated imminently by this Court without asking the parties to produce their remaining documents (if any) and oral testimony. More so, because the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anand Prasad Agarwala v. Tarkeshwar Prasad & Others, reported in 2002 (48) ALR 295, has held that while hearing the temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is not appropriate for any Court to hold a mini trial at the stage of granting such temporary injunction. However, I would like to discuss few prominent points involved in the controversy which are extremely essential in order to arrive at the correct and just decision of the instant dispute. More so, to answer the grouse arising out in the heart of affected party on account of the adverse effect of my order. 10. It is pertinent to mention that Miscellaneous Appeal No. 102/2012 was endorsed as not pressed on 25.2.2014 and thereafter Mr. Puri withdrew the Original Suit No. 62/2012 on 6.3.2014 with permission of the Court concerned to file it afresh after removing the mechanical defect, and this mechanical defect was got removed by way of registering the MCDTT through a deed dated 23.1.2013. So, after getting the MCDTT registered, they filed a fresh Original Suit No. 77/2014 in March 2014 itself, subsequent to withdrawal of the Original Suit No. 62/2012. It may not be irrelevant to mention here that even withdrawal of O.S. No. 62/2012 was challenged by Mr. So, after getting the MCDTT registered, they filed a fresh Original Suit No. 77/2014 in March 2014 itself, subsequent to withdrawal of the Original Suit No. 62/2012. It may not be irrelevant to mention here that even withdrawal of O.S. No. 62/2012 was challenged by Mr. Rohit Giri by way of filing the appeal in the Court of District Judge, but the same was dismissed by way of passing a detailed order. Then Mr. Rohit Giri resisted this fresh suit by way of filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, on the main ground that such a suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. I will examine that aspect later in my judgment. However, to judge the instant controversy, it is necessary to look upon the pedigree of the parties which has been displayed by the Puris in their plaint and the same is reproduced as under: TABLE 11. This pedigree is almost identical to that as has been displayed by Mr. Rohit Giri with a minuscule difference, and the said variation is that Mr. Rohit Giri does not recognize Mr. Dinesh Giri as his uncle. According to the version of Mr. Rohit Giri, Mr. Dinesh Giri is the son of Smt. Darshani Devi (the real sister of his grandfather Mr. Darshan Giri). 12. Mr. Rohit Giri accepts the registered Will executed on 28.6.1917 by Mr. Baldev Puri whereby he, recognizing the share of Mahant Ram Giri to the extent of 6 aanas out of 16 aanas in the entire management of the Shrine, bequeathed his share to the extent of 10 aanas out of 16 aanas to his two sons, who were minor at that time, viz. Chandi Charan Puri and Bhola Puri. Chandi Charan Puri remained unmarried and unfortunately died at the age of 7-8 years. Thus, Mr. Bhola Puri became the sole heir of Baldev Puri and thus inherited to the extent of 10 aanas out of 16 aanas. 13. Although it is not known as to whether Smt. Premvati was the legally wedded wife of Mr. Bhola Puri (as per law prevailing at that time), but it is clear from a number of papers available on the record that Smt. Premvati lived with Mr. 13. Although it is not known as to whether Smt. Premvati was the legally wedded wife of Mr. Bhola Puri (as per law prevailing at that time), but it is clear from a number of papers available on the record that Smt. Premvati lived with Mr. Bhola Puri as his wife under the same roof and on the land and within the precincts of the Shrine, which was a combined leased land in perpetuity in the names of Puris and Giris. Several papers have been filed on the lower court record displaying that this Shrine was existing under the supervision of the Puris even in the nineteenth century, as is exhibited in the judgment of Munsifi Nagina dated 27.8.1883 (Paper No. 10C-1/1 to 10C-1/11) and thereafter from the Appeal No. 505/1883 filed in the Court of Additional Judge and its judgment dated 27.8.1883 (Paper No. 11C-1/1 to 11C-1/7) and further by the judgment dated 5.4.1898 rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of the Judicature at Allahabad (Paper No. 12C-1/1 to 12C-1/3). 14. A document concerning the lease Paper No. 13C-1/1 to 13C-1/2 displays the lease area of 4 roods 22 poles to Ganga Puri and 1 rood 18 poles to Raghunath Giri. 15. Reading and leaving all that, the fact remains that even Mr. Rohit Giri admits that share of 10 aanas out of 16 aanas devolved on Mr. Bhola Puri, while remaining share of 6 aanas out of 10 aanas was the share of his great grand forefather of Ram Giri. 16. The bone of contention lies in the argument that Mr. Rohit Giri does not accept Smt. Premvati as the wife of Mr. Bhola Puri because Mr. Bhola Puri died some time in 1926-27 at the age of 17-18 years. So, as per the version of Mr. Rohit Giri, 10 aanas share of Mr. Bhola Puri shifted to Mr. Ram Giri and then from Mr. Ram Giri, it succeeded to his sole son Darshan Giri, who was his grandfather. Thus, Mr. Rohit Giri claims himself to be entitled to govern the entire property of the Shrine to the extent of total 16 aanas. 17. Per contra, the version of Puri brothers is that Mr. Bhola Puri died at a very young age of 17-18 years leaving his sole surviving own wife Smt. Premvati, who, pursuant to the direction of her husband, adopted a son namely Mr. 17. Per contra, the version of Puri brothers is that Mr. Bhola Puri died at a very young age of 17-18 years leaving his sole surviving own wife Smt. Premvati, who, pursuant to the direction of her husband, adopted a son namely Mr. Dayal Giri and absorbed him in the Puri sect for the care of herself and to look after the management/administration of the Shrine to the extent of 10 aanas share, which Mr. Bhola Puri was having. This adoption-cum-will deed (Annexure No. 8 to the appeal) was executed on 12.10.1946. So, as per Section 90 of the Evidence Act, which talks about the admissibility of documents written 30 years ago, such adoption-cum-will deed is at least prima facie acceptable in the evidence until and unless rebutted otherwise by Mr. Rohit Giri because on 12.10.1946, none could have anticipated the present controversy between the successors of Mr. Ram Giri and the heirs of Smt. Premvati. 18. Mr. Dayal Puri, who was the adopted son of Smt. Premvati on the strength of this deed dated 12.10.1946, was got married with the passage of time and blessed with four sons, namely, Mahant Srikant Puri (proforma defendant no. 2), Mahant Ram Puri (plaintiff no. 2), Mahant Ram Prakash Puri (proforma defendant no. 6) and Mahant Sanjay Prakash Puri (proforma defendant no. 5). 19. The most significant document on the record is the another registered Will executed by Smt. Premvati on 31.8.1976 at the age of 67 years in favour of Mahant Ram Puri and his brothers. This Will states the status of Smt. Premvati as Mahantani widow of late Mahant Bhola Puri Goswami and it was attested by the witnesses Mahant Darshan Giri, resident of Chandi Devi, Haridwar, and Mr. Swatantra Kumar Sharma, resident of Swatantra Kutir, Rajghat Road, Kankhal, Haridwar. So, it is clear that even Mahant Darshan Giri, who was none other but the real grandfather of Mr. Rohit Giri, had accepted Smt. Premvati as the widow of Mr. Bhola Puri. In this Will, the property/income of the Chandi Devi Temple and other related deities and places have been mentioned. So, it is obvious that all these properties, which were owned by Mr. Bhola Puri, devolved upon his wife Smt. Premvati after his death. Since Mr. Rohit Giri, had accepted Smt. Premvati as the widow of Mr. Bhola Puri. In this Will, the property/income of the Chandi Devi Temple and other related deities and places have been mentioned. So, it is obvious that all these properties, which were owned by Mr. Bhola Puri, devolved upon his wife Smt. Premvati after his death. Since Mr. Dayal Puri, father of Mahant Ram Prakash Puri and his three other brothers, too, had died during the lifetime of Smt. Premvati herself, so by virtue of the Will dated 31.8.1976 as well as by way of succession, the said property devolved jointly upon Mahant Ram Prakash Puri and his three brothers. 20. Argument of learned Counsel for Mr. Rohit Giri relating to various laws, to my mind, is not at all acceptable and tenable. Now, I would like to discuss the arguments, diligently prepared and put forth by learned Counsel of Mr. Rohit Giri. He submitted that even if the registered Will made by Smt. Premvati on 31.8.1976 was attested by the witness Mahant Darshan Giri, it could not confer any benefit upon the Puri brothers because no estoppel could have been claimed against the law. He has argued that before coming into operation of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act, 1937 (Act No. 18 of 1937), the property of the female Hindu used to devolve as per the Shastric Text, which was uncodified law, and after coming into force of the Act (Supra), a Hindu widow could acquire only the limited interest as per Section 3(3), which reads as under: “3. Devolution of property—(3) Any interest devolving on a Hindu widow under the provisions of this section shall be the limited interest known as a Hindu woman’s estate, provided however that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male owner.” 21. Meaning thereby that such Hindu widow, who inherited the property from her husband and acquired a limited interest therein, could have claimed partition during her lifetime as a male member but she had no right to transfer that property to anyone by any means, whatsoever. 16 22. Learned Counsel of Mr. Rohit Giri though has cited this law with great diligence, but Section 4 of the selfsame Act skipped his attention which is the saving clause and it reads as under: “4. 16 22. Learned Counsel of Mr. Rohit Giri though has cited this law with great diligence, but Section 4 of the selfsame Act skipped his attention which is the saving clause and it reads as under: “4. Saving—Nothing in this Act shall apply to the property of any Hindu dying intestate before the commencement of this Act” 23. Further, “die intestate” has been defined in that very Act and the same is set out as under: “5. Meaning of expression “die intestate”—For the purpose of this Act a person shall be deemed to die intestate in respect of all property of which he has not made a testamentary disposition which is capable of taking effect.” 24. As has been discussed above, Mr. Bhola Puri died intestate and the devolution of the interest of Smt. Premvati will not be affected by this Act No. 18 of 1937. Further, after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a Hindu widow acquired full interest on the property inherited by her from her husband. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act reads as under: “14. Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property—(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.” 25. Even further, Section 4 of Act of 1956 has overriding effect over all other laws prevailing prior to coming into force of this Act. Section 4 reads as under: “4. Overriding effect of Act—Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act— (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.” 26. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of C.W.T. v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 , has held that since the Preamble to the Act reiterates that the Act is to ‘amend’ and codify the law and Section 4 thereof makes it clear that one should look to the Act in case of doubt and not to the pre-existing Hindu law, the express words of the Act would prevail over the general law. 27. As regards the nature of offerings made at the Shrine is concerned, Hon’ble Apex Court in Badri Nath v. Punna, (1979) 3 SCC 71 , has held that right to receive share in offerings made at Shrine coupled with duties not involving personal qualification is property and therefore heritable. 28. Thus, it is abundantly clear that all the offerings made at the Chandi Devi Shrine including the gifts was in the nature of inheritable property from Mr. Bhola Puri to Smt. Premvati, and from Smt. Premvati to Mahant Ram Prakash Puri and his brothers and thus the Puri brothers had the same share to the extent of 10 aanas out of 16 aanas, as was held by Smt. Premvati on the basis of the registered Will dated 31.8.1976, which was duly attested by grandfather of Mr. Rohit Giri. There is no question of estoppel against the law because the law does not favour Mr. Rohit Giri himself. 29. That apart, there are several other documents indicating that this Shrine and its administration was looked after and taken care of by all the four Puri brothers to the extent of their share along with Smt. Meera Goswami to the extent of her share because Ramesh Goswami, husband of Meera Goswami and father of Rohit Giri, had died. So, that was the reason that even the passbook of Punjab National Bank issued on 3.4.2013 (Paper No. 27C in the lower court record) displays the joint name of Mahant Ram Puri and Smt. Meera Goswami. Electric bill of 2011 (Paper No. 25A-1 in the lower court record) shows the joint name of Mahant Ram Puri and Mr. Rohit Giri. Even Mr. Rohit Giri in paragraph 7 of his affidavit dated 29.9.2009 (Paper No. 24C in the lower court record) has deposed that disputed property including all the property of the temple is owned by the defendant Puris as it was perpetuating on lease by their predecessors. 30. Rohit Giri. Even Mr. Rohit Giri in paragraph 7 of his affidavit dated 29.9.2009 (Paper No. 24C in the lower court record) has deposed that disputed property including all the property of the temple is owned by the defendant Puris as it was perpetuating on lease by their predecessors. 30. Besides, an Original Suit No. 58/2004 (Paper No. 22-C1 in the lower court record) was filed by some tenant Chandra Pal against Mr. Rohit Giri and Ram Puri with the averments that the defendants Rohit Giri and Ram Puri were the owners and such averment was answered by Mr. Rohit Giri in the written statement (Paper No. 23C/2 in the lower court record), wherein paragraph 4 is the admission of Mr. Rohit Giri with his signature appended at the bottom of such written statement. 31. There are several other papers like 29C-1, letter written by the Chief Officer, Zila Parishad dated 18.2.1986 addressed to Mahant Ram Puri recognizing him as the Manager/Adhikari of the Chandi Ghat/Chandi Mandir; letter of Mr. Raghunandan Lal Gupta, the Executive Engineer of Jal Nigam (Paper No. 30C-1 in the lower court record) dated 1.6.1984 and letter of Forest Ranger Dated 1.3.1984 (Paper No. 31-C of the lower court record), and these are papers recognising Ram Puri as the Manager/Adhikari of the Chandi Ghat/Chandi Mandir and this was the time when Mr. Rohit Giri might not even had born or would have been a child of a year or two. Then how the affairs/administration of this Chandi Devi Shrine was being run? In the light of the evidence which has been discussed hereinabove, it is not prima facie acceptable that Mahant Ram Puri was simply a Manager in the form of employed servant of Smt. Meera Goswami. 32. Now, the next important question is about the genuineness of Maa Chandi Devi Mandir Parmarth trust constituted by Mr. Rohit Giri, who got it registered on 31.10.2009. The deed of such registration is available as Annexure No. 2 (Paper No. 41 to 52 in the file of civil revision). This deed itself reflects that this is a clever device or the mischievous brainchild of Mr. Rohit Giri to accomplish his ulterior motives. Rohit Giri, who got it registered on 31.10.2009. The deed of such registration is available as Annexure No. 2 (Paper No. 41 to 52 in the file of civil revision). This deed itself reflects that this is a clever device or the mischievous brainchild of Mr. Rohit Giri to accomplish his ulterior motives. He declared himself as the Chief Trustee and his wife Smt. Geetanjali Giri as the Member Trustee of this trust, and Smt. Geetanjali Giri has also signed in the capacity of a witness as well when this deed was being executed. While attesting the execution of such deed and putting her signature (though not happily legible) as a witness, she has not disclosed her identity as the wife of Mr. Rohit Giri, rather as the daughter of Mr. D.P. Bachhaiti for the obvious reason that acting under the immediate control, an unsuccessful attempt was made to conceal her identity to carry out such device of her husband Rohit Giri. 33. The fact cannot be over sighted that Mr. Rohit Giri and his wife Smt. Geetanjali Giri are running in the prime of their age, viz. in twenties, and they got this trust deed registered not in Haridwar (where it ought to have been registered), but in Rishikesh where the father of Smt. Geetanjali Giri is running a school. So, the local influence of his father-in-law could have been used by Mr. Rohit Giri to overcome the probable refusal by the registration office at Rishikesh, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Dehradun. The name and place of the school have been mentioned below the signature of Smt. Geetanjali Giri, daughter of Mr. D.P. Bachhaiti. 34. This trust (MCDMPT), so constituted by Mr. Rohit Giri, appears to be absolutely his private trust, and not a public charitable trust as is evident from Annexure No. 4 enclosed by Mr. Rohit Giri along with his affidavit dated 22.12.2014 filed as a short counter affidavit in the appeal file. This Annexure No. 4 is the recording of minutes of the meeting dated 8.1.2012 of such trust. This meeting was conducted immediately after the order dated 3.1.2012 (supra) passed by the Division Bench of this Court and in this meeting, besides Mr. Rohit Giri along with his affidavit dated 22.12.2014 filed as a short counter affidavit in the appeal file. This Annexure No. 4 is the recording of minutes of the meeting dated 8.1.2012 of such trust. This meeting was conducted immediately after the order dated 3.1.2012 (supra) passed by the Division Bench of this Court and in this meeting, besides Mr. Rohit Giri showing himself as the Chief Lifetime Trustee and Smt. Geetanjali Giri as Lifetime Trustee, three other persons have been shown as the Member as well and the identity of these three persons is quite amazing. Among these three, Smt. Meera Giri is none other but the real mother of Mr. Rohit Giri and she is an old woman (a widow too); second one is Mr. Akash Bachhaiti, who is the real brother of Smt. Geetanjali Giri and brother-in-law of Mr. Rohit Giri; while the third one is Smt. Pushpanjali Giri, who is none other but the real sister of Smt. Geetanjali Giri and real sister-in-law of Mr. Rohit Giri. These relationships have been accepted by Smt. Geetanjali Giri (personally present) during hearing in this Court. The above details make this fact quite transparent that the nature of this trust (MCDMPT) is purely private and it comprises of Mr. Rohit Giri and Smt. Geetanjali Giri (the husband and wife) and their closest relatives like mother, real brother-in-law and sister-in-law of Mr. Rohit Giri. In these circumstances, how this trust of Mr. Rohit Giri can be accepted to be a public charitable and religious trust? The answer to this question is certainly in negative. This trust cannot be recognised as a public charitable and religious trust because it was got registered cleverly and covertly, with ulterior mischievous motives to be accomplished some time later, in another district. More so, because the registration of trust is not a pre-requisite to run the public religious and charitable activities by any Shirne or temple, as is envisaged under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. This provision accepts the existence of even the constructive trust created for public purposes, charitable and religious in nature, and so is the trust run by all the four Puri brothers along with Mr. Dinesh Giri and his son Mr. Ravi Giri, who claim themselves as descendants from the lineage of Mr. Darshan Giri (the grandfather of Mr. This provision accepts the existence of even the constructive trust created for public purposes, charitable and religious in nature, and so is the trust run by all the four Puri brothers along with Mr. Dinesh Giri and his son Mr. Ravi Giri, who claim themselves as descendants from the lineage of Mr. Darshan Giri (the grandfather of Mr. Rohit Giri), and not from Smt. Darshani Devi (the real sister of Mr. Darshan Giri). 35. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, while passing the orders dated 3.1.2012 and 19.10.2012, would certainly not have envisioned the exclusion of the trust (may be constructive) looked after and taken care of by the four Puri brothers along with Mr. Darshan Giri, Mr. Ravi Giri and Mr. Vikas Puri, which they, in order to avoid any confusion, also got registered (though at later point of time) on 23.1.2013. 36. So, in view of this Court, the District Magistrate and the police administration got completely swayed away by misinterpretation of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court dated 3.1.2012 and 19.10.2012 giving sole recognition to the trust constituted by Mr. Rohit Giri and being oblivious of the provisions contained under Section 92 CPC, which talks about the existence of the constructive trust as well and this constructive trust, which was later on got registered by the Puris and all others aforenamed on 23.1.2013, was a genuine trust working since many decades even at the time when Mr. Rohit Giri has not come on this earth. It is another aspect that these Puri brothers might have misused or abused the funds and offerings made at the Shrine deeming that as their own property, but the same can be rectified by the District Magistrate and the SSP after passing of the orders dated 3.1.2012 and 19.10.2012 by the Division Bench of this Court. Even if the nature of the trust though being public religious and charitable was not accepted by the Puri brothers in some pleadings, but such nature cannot be dependant on the admission or denial of the Puri brothers. The charitable and religious nature of this trust is inherent regardless of the denial or acceptance of Puri brothers or anyone else and its property can be used for public and charitable purposes, and for no other purpose as has been held out by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 3.1.2012. The charitable and religious nature of this trust is inherent regardless of the denial or acceptance of Puri brothers or anyone else and its property can be used for public and charitable purposes, and for no other purpose as has been held out by the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 3.1.2012. 37. Learned Counsel of the revisionist, during the course of arguments, has spoken a Shayri while questioning the integrity of Puri brothers and the same is as under: ß[kqnk mudks rks c[‘k nsrk gS] ftudh fdzLer [kjkc gksrh gSA ij oks gjfxt ugha c[‘ks tkrs] ftudh uh;r [kjkc gksrh gSAÞ 38. I would not like to make any comment further weighing the integrity, genuineness, bona fide and the honest intentions of the other party, rather leave it to infer for the every reader of this judgment as to whom this Shayri applies more appropriately. But at the same time, this Court would not leave the injustice to perpetuate henceforth (as prima facie it appears to be happening with the Puri brothers and all the members and trustees of the trust deed dated 23.1.2013) and directs the District Magistrate and the SSP of Haridwar to give more weightage to Maa Chandi Devi Temple Trust having 13/16 shares in the management, which was got registered by the Puri brothers and all other trustees on 23.1.2013 albeit it was working since decades, rather from centuries, and more so on the discussions as aforestated, Mr. Rohit Giri at the most is entitled to 3 aanas share in the total management of 16 aanas of the Shrine Chandi Devi Temple and its related properties. 39. In order to avoid confusion, it is hereby further made clear that the district administration and the police will abide with the directions issued in the orders dated 3.1.2012 as well as 19.10.2012 by the Division Bench of this Court and will not preclude the Puri brothers and all the trustees of the deed dated 23.1.2013 deeming them to be the private member of the trust as they are not the private members, but taking care of this constructive trust from many decades. That apart, the order dated 19.10.2012 regarding registration of criminal case against any private member was passed not on the sole application no. 829/2012 moved by Mr. Rohit Giri, but also on the application no. 785/2012 moved by Puri brothers. That apart, the order dated 19.10.2012 regarding registration of criminal case against any private member was passed not on the sole application no. 829/2012 moved by Mr. Rohit Giri, but also on the application no. 785/2012 moved by Puri brothers. Both these applications were neither perfectly allowed nor rejected, but these were disposed of in terms laid down in the order. The term “private member” may be attributed to any other person outside the family lineage of Puri brothers and Mr. Rohit Giri. 40. Genuineness of all the accounts maintained till date of this judgement and shown by Mr. Rohit Giri shall be judged by the Trial Court during the course of trial and the money/gold, silver articles or any other kind of offerings collected so far will also be appropriately looked after and utilised for the purpose of betterment of this public religious charitable trust. 41. Now, I come to the civil revision which has been preferred praying the rejection of the plaint of Original Suit No. 77/2014 on the ground of res judicata and constructive res judicata. I do not agree with the arguments of learned Counsel for the reason that Original Suit No. 62/2012 was withdrawn on 6.3.2014 with the permission of the Court to file the fresh suit and the Trial Court was well within its competence to accord such permission. The Miscellaneous Appeal No. 102/2012 refusing the ad interim injunction against Mr. Rohit Giri was endorsed as not pressed because they were constrained to do so in the event of misinterpretation of the orders of the Division Bench by the District Magistrate and the SSP concerned. So, after getting this constructive trust into an express trust by way of the deed dated 23.1.2013, no law prevents them to bring a fresh suit. 42. Learned Counsel of the revisionist has also challenged the institution of the fresh Original Suit No. 77/2014 on the ground that such suit was barred under Order 23 Rule 2 CPC as well as by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court is of the view that such bar of the limitation is to be determined by the Court below prima facie in view of the discussion made in the preceding paragraph. This Court does not think that the bar of limitation is applicable as averred by the revisionist. The Court is of the view that such bar of the limitation is to be determined by the Court below prima facie in view of the discussion made in the preceding paragraph. This Court does not think that the bar of limitation is applicable as averred by the revisionist. Nonetheless, the same can be adjudicated at the time of final hearing by the Trial Court along with other issues. 43. In view of what has been stated above and with the directions made to the DM and SSP of Haridwar in the body of this judgment, the Appeal from Order No. 610/2014 is allowed. As a consequence, it is hereby directed that the administration of the whole Shrine along with its connected properties may be taken care of by Mr. Rohit Giri only to the extent of 3 (Three) aanas share out of 16 (Sixteen) aanas, while rest of the administration to the extent of 13 (Thirteen) aanas will be taken care of by the Puri brothers and Dinesh Giri with his son Ravi Giri under the title Maa Chandi Devi Temple Trust. Needless to say, they all will also be bound by the instructions and mandate entailed in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 3.1.2012 and will be strictly accountable to each and every offerings/gifts made by the devotees at the Shrine. They will co-opt the District Magistrate and the SSP in their ex-officio capacity as the trustees of the Maa Chandi Devi Temple Trust. Resultantly, the Civil Revision No. 137/2014 is hereby dismissed. It is further made clear that the Trial Court will not feel affected by any observation made by this Court in the body of the judgment and will be at full liberty to make its own view regarding merits of the case. Let the lower court record be sent back.