Sanjay Karol, J.@mdashThis is the plaintiffs'' Regular Second Appeal filed u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 27.6.2001 passed by Addl. District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal no. 6-NL/13 of 2001, whereby judgment and decree dated 5.10.2000 passed by Sub Judge, Nalagarh in Civil Suit no. 94/1 of 1996, stands reversed.
2. Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-
2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has gone astray and recorded the findings, which are beyond the scope of pleadings and material on record.
3. Whether in the absence of any objection regarding the compliance of Section 91 C.P.C., the plaintiffs can not be non-suted.
4. Whether in institution of suit for injunction, it is not essential that the plaintiffs should get them registered under the Society Registration Act.
5.Whether the inferences and conclusions, as drawn by the lower Appellate Court are contrary to provisions of law and, therefore, are liable to be set-aside.
3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction making the following prayers:
It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to pass the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any kind of interference and hindrance in the working and management pf the Plaintiff no. 1 i.e. Idol of Shri Asth Bhuji Durga Matta Ji installed in the Durga Matta Mandir, Ghattiwala, Ward no. 9, Nalagarh town, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, (H.P.), through the Durga Mandir Improvement Committee constituted under the Presidentship of Plaintiff no. 2, in favour of the plaintiffs and its devotees and against the defendants with costs;
4. The background leading to filing the suit, as is also evidently clear from the written statement filed by the defendants i.e the State and the Naib Tehsildar, is that Idol of Ashat Bhujji Durga Matta Ji installed in Durga Matta Mandir, Ghattiwala, Ward no. 9, Nalagarh Town, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan, H.P., was being managed by the local people. Even as per the stand taken by the defendants, plaintiffs are in possession of the temple and managing its affairs. Another Set of local people constituted a Committee under the name of Nav Durga Pracheen Mandir, Ghattiwala, Nalagarh and applied for its registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Incidentally, plaintiff''s application for registration was also pending. Application was opposed by the plaintiffs and consequently Deputy Commissioner, Solan issued directions to the Naib Tehsildar, Nalagarh in terms of letter dated 20.3.1996 (Ext.D-1) to take over the temple and manage its affairs till such time issue between the two groups was amicably resolved.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction?
...OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?
...OPD
3. Whether this suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction?
...OPD
4. Whether this suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?
...OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?
...OPD
Relief.
6. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties (oral and documentary), trial Court decided issue no. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs and issues no. 2 to 5 against the defendants. Trial Court specifically held that plaintiffs were managing the affairs of the temple for the last 30-35 years and documentary evidence (Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-16), duly proved by the plaintiffs on record, evidently established that not only bank account opened in the name of Idol was being operated by the committee headed by the plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 but also certain additional construction had been raised by them on the suit land. Plaintiffs had also sought registration of their society under the Societies Registration Act. The Court specifically held that State had failed to show that affairs of the temple were being managed by them or that the temple and not the land over which the temple was constructed, was owned, controlled or managed by the State.
7. Thus, the trial Court decreed the suit, in terms of judgment and decree dated 5.10.2000, to the following effect:-
14. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in the management of the plaintiff no. 1 i.e. Idol of Shri Asth Bhuji Durga Matta Ji installed in the Durga Matta Mandir, Chattiwala, Ward no. 9, Nalagarh Town, Tehsil Nalagarh, Distt. Solan (H.P.) through the Durga Mandir Improvement Committee except in accordance with law with costs. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File after its needful be consigned to record room.
8. Significantly, the other group which had also sought registration of the Society was not aggrieved of such findings but the State filed an appeal before the District Judge, which stands decided in terms of impugned judgment and decree dated 27.6.2001.
9. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the plaintiffs'' suit primarily on the ground that plaintiffs'' society was not registered and as such, suit was not maintainable. The Court also held that no permission u/s 91 of the CPC was sought for by the plaintiffs.
10. I am of the considered view that the Court below adopted a wholly erroneous, illegal and perverse approach in dismissing the plaintiffs'' suit. Significantly, the Lower Appellate Court did not deal with only of the findings of fact returned by the trial Court. It also did not reverse findings to the effect that plaintiffs were actually in possession and managing affairs of the temple continuously over a long period of time. The Lower Appellate Court itself held that there is no findings to the effect that affairs of the deity were not being managed in accordance with law or that there was public nuisance or wrongful act committed by the persons managing such affairs. In these circumstances, provisions of Section 91 of the CPC are not attracted at all. The provisions would come into play only if a case of public nuisance or wrongful act affecting public is involved. In the instant case and to the contrary, plaintiffs were seeking simple prayer of declaration of injunction to the effect that the Naib Tehsildar be prevented from interfering with the affairs of the deity except in accordance with law. Undisputedly, Ex.D-1 was not issued under the permission of the Charitable Trusts Act, 1957. Complaint before the Deputy Commissioner was not against the plaintiffs. In fact, there was no complaint of mismanagement. On the contrary, plaintiffs had protested against the registration of a new Committee endeavored to be set up by a new group. As such, interference by the Lower Appellate Court was unwarranted.
11. Insofar as the provisions of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act is concerned, plaintiffs had not filed the suit in the name or on behalf of the society. Their society was not registered. Suit was filed on behalf of the deity and its devotees. Hence, the Lower Appellate Court seriously erred in dismissing the same. The Lower Appellate Court ventured into issues, which were not framed or opportunity furnished to prove the same during trial. Maintainability of the suit for want of registration was not an issue framed by the Court. Hence, the Court mis-directed itself in venturing into the same.
12. For all the aforesaid reasons, judgment and decree dated 27.6.2001 passed by the Lower Appellate Court is set-aside and the judgment and decree dated 5.10.2000 passed by the trial Court, is affirmed.
13. Questions of law are answered accordingly.
