[2025:RJ-JD:25501] 1 of 9 [CSA-102/2025]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 102/2025

Ramdev S/o Shri Ramchandra, Aged About 83 Years, R/o Sutharo Ka Badi
Guwad, At Present Mohalla Nahatan, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Appellant

Versus

1. Shri Jain Shwetambar Oswal Shri Sangh Kharatgachh Trust Bikaner,

Through President/Trustee Shri Ratan Lal S/o Shri Banshilal R/o Nahaton
Ka Mohalla, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

2. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aman Bishnoi Bola

Ms. Jyo Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishank Madhan
Mr. Narendra Thanvi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

Reserved on 15/05/2025

Pronounced on 26/05/2025
ti
 [2025:RJ-JD:25501] 2 of 9 [CSA-102/2025]

1. This second appeal has been led by the appellant being aggrieved by
the judgement and decree dated 18.05.2018 of the learned
subordinate court, Addi onal Civil Judge No. 2, Bikaner and the
impugned decision and decree dated 26.11.2024 of the rst appellate
court, Addi onal District Judge No. 5, Bikaner con rming the same.

2. Brie y, the facts of the case are that a plaint was presented on behalf
of the respondent/plain before the court of District Judge, Bikaner
on 02.01.1989, which later got transferred to Addi onal Civil Judge
No. 2, Bikaner. The plaint was led on behalf of the plain /
respondent on the ground that the plain is a public trust, which is
duly registered at No. 272 in the register of public trusts of the
Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jodhpur and Bikaner
Division under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and the plain trust has
an immovable property situated in Mohalla Nahatan of Bikaner city,
whose lease is in the name of Shri Jinchand Suri disciple Shri Jinsiddh
Suri.

3. On behalf of the plain /respondent, as per the tradi on of hundreds

of years, the lease was made in the name of Acharya Shri Pujya Shri
Jinchand Suri of Shri Sangh, although he did not have the right to
transfer the property. This custom is the most prevalent law in the
Oswal Shri Sangh society.

4. The plain men oned the names of Shri Pujya who were the head of
Oswal Shri Sangh from me to me and stated that Shri Pujya JinSom
Prabhu Suri had appointed Poonamchand, Pratapchand as salaried
priests and made arrangements for their stay, later a woman named
Asha was appointed for cleaning and a er her death the defendants
had taken possession of two Safas, and thus by presen ng a plaint it
was prayed that the Bara be declared the property of the plain and
the defendant be evicted and the plain be given possession and a
fl
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ff
fi
ti
fi
ft
ti
ff
ti
ff
fi
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ff
ti
ff
ti
ff
 [2025:RJ-JD:25501] 3 of 9 [CSA-102/2025]

permanent injunc on be issued and intermediate bene ts be given on

monthly basis.

5. The defendants opposed it by ling a Rejoinder. On which a total of 11

issues were established and a er taking evidence of the par es, the
learned subordinate court Addi onal Civil Judge No. 2, Bikaner, by
judgement and decree dated 18.05.2018, decided the plain 's suit
and determined the disputed property Bara with Upasara to be the
property of the plain s Shri Jain Shwetambar Oswal Shri Sangh
Khartargachh Trust, Bikaner and the defendants were declared
en tled to hand over the vacant possession to the plain s within one
month and to receive the interim bene t from 27.12.1988 at the rate
of Rs. 200/- per month ll possession is obtained and the defendants
are restricted by permanent injunc on.

6. First appeal was led on behalf of the respondents/appellant, which

a er considering the issues in the rst appeal, the decision of the
learned subordinate court was con rmed and the appeal appellant
was dismissed by the Addi onal District Judge No. 5, Bikaner by his
judgment and decree on 26.11.2024.

7. The appellant took various grounds in his appeal and on the basis of
exhibits 8, 9 and 11, pleaded that it is clear from the plaint that there
are two trusts. The rst trust is in the name of Shri Jain Shwetambar
Oswal Shri Sangh Khartargachh Trust, Bikaner and the second trust is
in the name of Shri Jain Shwetambar Oswal Khartargachh (Acharya
Branch) Pranyas Bikaner. Both the subordinate courts have commi ed
a legal error in considering both the trusts as one trust. The trust deed
of the rst trust was not produced and the trust deed of the rst trust
was not produced and the presented document Exhibit-13A was
unreadable, despite that the property rights were declared to be in
the hands of the plain , which was said to be unlawful. Important
ft
ti
fi
fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ff
ff
ti
fi
ft
ti
ti
fi
fi
fi
fi
ti
ff
fi
ti
ti
ff
tt
 [2025:RJ-JD:25501] 4 of 9 [CSA-102/2025]

evidence was not presented by the plain and it was said that there
was contradic on in the pleadings and evidence and while describing
various grounds in the appeal, a total of 15 substan al ques ons of
law were proposed and by accep ng the appeal, it was prayed to
cancel the decision and decree of the learned subordinate court and
the learned rst appellate court.

8. Admission arguments were heard. During the admission arguments,

learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the a en on of the
court to the principle (1) given in respect of substan al ques on of
law men oned in paragraph no. 37 of the judicial precedent of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nazir Mohammad vs. J. Kamla Civil Appeal
Nos. 2843-2844/2010 judgment dated 27.08.2020 (2020) 0AIR(SC)
4321 and argued that in this case, there is a dispute regarding
"construc on of document", due to which a substan al ques on of
law arises in this case that the name of di erent trusts is men oned in
Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 11, in such a situa on, the plain trust has been
declared to be the owner of the disputed land by the subordinate
court in an illegal manner, on this basis, a request was made to
formulate the following substan al ques on of law on his behalf in
this regard:-
"Whether the learned courts below commi ed
serious irregularity by misconstruing the documents
which came on record and were exhibited as Exhibit 7,
8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13A by wrongly applying the se led
principles of law?"
9. Learned advocate on behalf of the respondent argued that the plaint
was presented on the basis of Shri Jain Shwetambar Oswal Shri Sangh
Khartargachh Trust, Bikaner, which is a public trust, which is registered
with the Assistant Commissioner Devasthan Department, Jodhpur and
Bikaner Division under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, whose
registra on cer cate is Exhibit 8, and the public trust registered in
Exhibit 8 has not been cancelled and all the proper es are vested in
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ff
tt
tt
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
 [2025:RJ-JD:25501] 5 of 9 [CSA-102/2025]

the same trust, on the basis of which the suit has been decreed by the
learned subordinate court. In such a situa on, there are not two
di erent trusts in Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 11 and the registra on of
Exhibit 8 has not been cancelled and this ma er is not related to the
dispute between two di erent trusts and the defendant / appellant is
only the occupant who has no right to object in this regard.
Concurrent nding has been given by both the subordinate courts and
the appellant/respondent has been held to be the occupant and
decree of evic on has been passed against the respondent/appellant.
In such a situa on, there is no jus ca on for raising substan al
ques on law proposed in this case. On this basis, the appellant
requested that the appeal be dismissed at the stage of admission
itself.

10. I have pondered over the above arguments. I have studied the
appellate court's le and the les of both the subordinate courts,
observed the judicial precedents presented. My conclusion is that the
plaint was presented by the plain through Shri Jain Shwetambar
Oswal Shri Sangh Khartargachh Trust, Bikaner on behalf of Chairman
Trustee Ratanlal Nahta and Trustee Treasurer Mohanlal. In the plaint,
it was clearly stated that the plain trust was duly registered under
the Rajasthan Sarvajanik Pranyas Act in the register of Sarvajanink
Pranyas of Assistant Commissioner Devasthan Department, Jodhpur
and Bikaner Division at number 272 and to prove this fact, Exhibit 8 is
the cer cate, Exhibit 9 is regarding the declara on of the disputed
property and other proper es of Shri Jin Somprabha Suri Shri Pujya
Khartargachh Acharya being objects of public right (public
endowment). Exhibit 10 Decision dated 23.12.1980 Court Assistant
Commissioner Devsthan Department Jodhpur and Bikaner Division
Jodhpur and Exhibit 13 (A) Cons tu on of Sarvajanik Pranyas Trust
and Exhibit 12 List of trustees of Exhibit 8 have been obtained from
the Devsthan Department under the Right to Informa on Act and
exhibited.
ff
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
ti
fi
ff
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ff
ff
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
 [2025:RJ-JD:25501] 6 of 9 [CSA-102/2025]

11. Exhibit 11 is a document wri en by Nemi Suri disciple Sri Jin

Somprabha Suri dated 15.04.1985, which is subsequent to Exhibit 8.

12. The documents men oned earlier were considered. Judgment Exhibit
10 is important in this case, which is an applica on form No. 6 under
Sec on 17 (2) of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, submi ed by
Banshilal Malu for registra on of Shri Jain Shwetambar Oswal Shri
Sangh Khartargachh Trust, Bikaner. Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is
men oned in the judgment and all the documents presented
regarding the mee ng of the society and the previous cases were
considered and considering Exhibit 9 wri en by Somprabha Suri on
11.03.1957, a trust named Shri Jain Shwetambar Oswal Shri Sangh
Khartargachh Trust, Bikaner was considered to be situated and in
existence in Nahata Mohalla, Bikaner and it was considered to be a
public trust. The property of this trust was declared to include
Upasara, Bara, Shan nathji temple, open land of Upasara etc. and
according to sec on 19, it was declared a public trust and ordered to
register it. Banshilal Malu applicant was instructed to cons tute the
managing commi ee (trustees) of the trust within one month and
submit the cons tu on of the trust so that a cer cate could be
issued in the name of the chairman and an order was given to register
the entries in the registra on register as per the judgement and to
issue the cer cate a er receiving the list of the members and
trustees.

13. No record has been produced on behalf of the defendants on this le

to show that any appeal was made against the decision dated
23.12.1980 of the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department,
Jodhpur and Bikaner Division, Jodhpur or that the decision was
cancelled. Exhibit 13 was produced on behalf of the plain by
Ratanlal Nahata while ge ng the evidence of the trust as PW 1, which
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
tti
ti
ti
tt
tt
ti
ti
fi
ti
tt
ti
ff
fi
[2025:RJ-JD:25501] 7 of 9 [CSA-102/2025]

was said to be the cons tu on of the trust dated 15.01.1981 and its
photocopy was produced as Exhibit 13A. In the cross-examina on
done on behalf of the learned advocate defendant, it was clari ed that
Shri Jin Nemi Suri has declared Exhibit 11, which was declared later
and Exhibit 9, the trust declara on, was declared by Shri Jin Somprabh
Suri and Jin Nemi Suri was the disciple of Jin Somprabh Suri.

14. No cross-examina on was made on the issue of Exhibit 13 and its

photocopy not being readable. When the original Exhibit 13 was
present, some cross-examina on could have been made in that regard
but no cross-examina on was made in this ma er. The learned
subordinate court considered Exhibit 13A, which is a photocopy, to be
unreadable but the list of trustees was considered to be readable due
to the signatures and it was clearly men oned in the judgements from
Exhibit 13A that the chairman, treasurer were Ratanlal Nahta and
Mohanlal. Exhibit 13A was observed and on looking at page no. 1
carefully, the name of the trust is clearly visible in the rst paragraph
as Shri Jain Shwetambar Oswal Shri Sangh Khartargachh Trust. On
page 2, the signatures clearly show that the chairman is Ratanlal
Nahta, the treasurer is Mohanlal and the names of other members are
also clearly visible from the signatures. According to the judgement
Exhibit 10, Exhibit 13, the list of trusts was to be presented before the
Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan Department, Jodhpur and Bikaner
Division, Jodhpur, only a er that the cer cate was to be issued. From
this it is clear that the copy of Exhibit 13 was de nitely presented
before the Assistant Commissioner and the list of trusts was also
presented.

15. Exhibit 12 is clear in the list of members of the Trust obtained under
the Right to Informa on, in which the name men oned therein is
clearly visible in Exhibit 13. The name of the Trust is men oned as Shri
Jain Shwetambar Oswal Shri Sangh Khartargachh Trust Bikaner Nahta
Mohalla Bikaner. In this, in the details of the documents related to the
ti
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
tt
fi
ti
fi
ti
fi
ti
 [2025:RJ-JD:25501] 8 of 9 [CSA-102/2025]

crea on of the trust, in column number 6, declara on dated 11.03.57

of Shri Somprabha Suri ji has been men oned, which is exhibited on
the le as Exhibit 9. Regarding the proper es, the leases which have
been shown as displayed in the decision, those proper es have been
men oned. Exhibit 8 is cer cate dated 15.01.1981 a document dated
1981 has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Devasthan
Department in which Shri Jaine Shwetambar Oswal Shri Sangh
Khartargach Trust, Bikaner is men oned as number 272 in the register.
The pleadings men oned in the plaint by the plain have been
proved from these documents only. Exhibits 8 to 10 from the
pleadings of the plaint are the basis of suit.

16. Exhibit 11 appears to be a document wri en in the event of some

dispute in the society a er the forma on of the Sarvajanik Pranayam
Trust. It is clear that it was wri en by Jin Nemisuri, the so-called
disciple of Shri Jin Somprabh Suri, who wrote Exhibit 9. It is men oned
in it that his respected Guruji, knowing the doubts in the minds of
some followers at that me and keeping the future in mind, made a
declara on in this regard that all these proper es belong to Shri
Sangh, on 11.03.1957. In such a situa on, according to Exhibit 11, it is
clear that Exhibit 9 was wri en by his Guru and the Sarvajanik
Pranayam is registered on the basis of Exhibit 9 and other documents.
In such a situa on, the name of the trust in Exhibit 11 has been
men oned as Shri Jain Shwetambar Oswal Khartargachh (Acharya
Branch) Trust, Bikaner, while Exhibit 8 shows it as a registered trust
and Exhibit 12 men ons the proper es of this trust in accordance with
the judgement Exhibit 10, it is not legal to consider the ma er by
considering two di erent trusts on the basis of Exhibit 11.

17. In this case, there is no dispute of existence of two separate trusts.

The property in dispute has been declared to be the property of a
public trust as per the decision of the Assistant Commissioner
Devasthan Department, which decision and cer cate Exhibit 8 has
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ft
ti
ti
fi
tt
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tt
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ff
tt
ti
 [2025:RJ-JD:25501] 9 of 9 [CSA-102/2025]

not been cancelled. In such a situa on, it is not legal to give any kind
of conclusion against the plain /respondent on the basis of the
appeal of the appellant/defendant, who is not a trustee in this case,
but an occupant, by assuming that there are two separate trusts as
per Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 11. In such a situa on, the appellant has
challenged the decisions of the subordinate court in the appeal on the
basis of Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 11 and has prayed for raising substan al
ques ons of law on that basis, which is not legal. In the case at hand,
the judgements of both the courts is the same and the defendant/
appellant has been held to be an illegal occupant in this case. In such a
situa on, no substan al ques on of law is found to be raised in this
case. The appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed at the stage
of admission itself as it is not a substan al ques on of law. The judicial
precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court presented by the learned
counsel on behalf of the appellant is not relevant to the present case
as per the earlier considera on, the appellant is not en tled to get any
bene t from it.

18. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission of the

appellant under Sec on 100 CPC. The record of the learned
subordinate court should be returned along with a copy of the
judgment. Since the original appeal has been disposed of, the stay
applica on should also be considered disposed of.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J

ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti