Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the context of a civil appeal concerning the possession of property associated with a trust. The appellant, Shesh Karan, represented by legal representatives, contested the matter against the respondent, Kamlesh Ramsnehi, also represented by legal representatives. The Supreme Court, in its order dated August 3, 2009, addressed the question of whether the legal representatives of the original plaintiff should provide an undertaking regarding the delivery of possession of the suit property. The court noted that the respondents were willing to give such an undertaking, affirming that the suit did not involve any question of title. The State of Rajasthan had also been impleaded in the matter and submitted a counter affidavit, which included a notification regarding the handing over of Ram Dwara to the Devasthan Department. The State contended that the deceased respondent had filed the suit as the Mahant of Ram Dwara and raised issues regarding the eligibility of the Mahant due to marital status. However, the court clarified that it was not required to decide on the State's contention in this appeal. The court concluded by allowing the appeal to be disposed of with the observations made, emphasizing the parties' liberty to pursue any available legal remedies. The decision underscored the procedural aspect of requiring an undertaking from the legal representatives without delving into the substantive issues of title or eligibility of the Mahant.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Undertaking by Legal Representatives - Requirement of Undertaking - Not specified in any Act - The court required the legal representatives of the original plaintiff to provide an undertaking that possession of the suit property would benefit the trust or the Mahant elected in the future. The respondents agreed to provide such an undertaking, leading to the disposal of the appeal. Held that the appeal was disposed of in these terms (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an undertaking should be given by the legal representatives of the original plaintiff regarding possession of the suit property.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, requiring the legal representatives to provide an undertaking that possession would benefit the trust or future Mahant. The court did not address the substantive issues raised by the State regarding the Mahant's eligibility.
Law Points
- Undertaking by legal representatives
- Possession of property
- Trust law
- Mahant's rights
