PHOOL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Phool Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 27901 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 12480 (20 July 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                             Court No.6.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27901 of 2007.

Phool Singh.                  Vs.          State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

            By the impugned order the Additional District Judge, Jalaun has granted leave to file the suit. It was alleged in the application that the temple is a public trust and about 100 years old and Kishori Lal was Mahatmim but he transferred the Mohatmimship to the opposite party who has got his name entered in the revenue record and                                                                                                                                                                                                                             he utilises the property for himself. Objections were filed by the applicant alleging that the property is not a public trust and that the opposite party has kept the income and expenses of the property and there is no need of any suit. The court below found prima facie case, in which the management and accounting may be looked into in the interest of deity. Prima facie it has been shown that the property belongs to the temple given to the public. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the property in dispute is neither a public trust nor there is any mismanagement.  For the purpose of grant of leave the case has to be considered prima facie. The question as to whether or not it is a public trust and whether mismanagement has been committed will be finally decided in the trial.

         No ground for interference has been made out. Dismissed.

20.7.2007.s.

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.