Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: TPC 138/2025
Naveen Kumar @ Babloo vs Bara Mandir Trust Committee
22.12.2025
Present : Sh. Ajay Malhotra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Sh. Arun Goswami, Proxy for Sh. Diwan Singh
Chauhan, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2.
Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.15
(c).
Sh. Rajiv Mehra, Ld. Counsel for respondents
no.8(i) and 9.
Sh. Ankur Khanna, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.4.
Separate Vakalatnamas on behalf of respondent no.2
and respondents no.8(i) & 9 filed. Taken on record.
Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent
no.15(c) filed. Taken on record.
Heard.
Briefly, it is submitted that Appeal bearing RCA No.
26/23 titled “Bara Mandir Trust Committee & Ors. Vs Shyam
Kishore & ors.” is pending adjudication in the Court of Addl.Sr.
Civil Judge. The same is filed impugning the order dated
16.08.2023, wherein the petitioner herein Sh. Naveen Kumar was
one of the defendant. That suit was for perpetual and mandatory
injunction seeking restrain orders against the defendants from
interfering/disturbing or causing any other obstruction in
celebrating Sh. Narsingh Jayanti Mahotsava on 12/13.05.1987
and that they shall not obstruct the organization of Radha
Ashtami Mahotsav. The Court after taking evidence decided the
matter on 16.08.2023 whereby the suit filed by Bara Mandir
Trust Committee & Ors. was dismissed.
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
The other appeal bearing RCA No.88/2023 is filed
challenging the judgment dated 29.05.2023 vide which the Ld.
Civil Judge has dismissed the suit filed by Bara Mandir Trust
Committee & Ors. against Shyam Kishore & Ors., wherein the
petitioner herein is also one of the defendant. That suit was for
possession and recovery of mesne profits and perpetual
injunction alleging that plaintiff trust is the owner of Bara Mandir
alongwith its properties and that defendant was a pujari under the
plaintiff. He was allowed to live as a licensee in two rooms and
one kitchen in property no.577, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi and that he alongwith his family is residing there. The suit
is seeking possession of that property alongwith the damages.
The Court dismissed the suit for possession holding that the
plaintiff has failed to establish the issues no.1 and 2. The same
are-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
possession as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
damages, if so, for which period and at what rate? OPP
The Court reached to the conclusion as reflected in para 24
of the judgment that -
“24. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that there is no
evidence on record to substantiate the averments of the
plaintiffs that the suit property belongs to the Trust or that the
same was given to the defendant on license basis by the Trust
except the self-serving statements of PW-1 made in his
examination in chief. It is clear that plaintiffs have failed to
discharge the burden to prove the present issue. Accordingly,
the present issue is decided against the plaintiffs and in
favour of the defendant.”
On the basis of the same, issue no.2 was also
-- 2 of 4 --
decided.
The other suit as discussed above was only seeking
permanent and mandatory injunction with respect to the holding
of celebrations of Radha Ashtami and Sh. Narsingh Mahotsavas.
In the entire proceedings there was no issue with respect to the
relationship of the Trust with the defendant or any right of the
Trust over the property of the temple except the right to
perform/celebrate the mahotsav. The contention of the
petitioner/applicant is that in both the cases, the title of the Trust
is involved, but as discussed and referred above, in both the
cases, the issues were totally different.
No doubt in the suit for possession that issue was
involved as to whether the trust is having any right over the
property coupled with the relationship of the plaintiffs with the
defendant, but in the other suit for permanent injunction, there
was no question of title or even relationship. Even in these two
suits, the issues were totally different. Merely because some of
the party, thought that it was a suit for title and has argued that
the trust is a fake trust, that is not going to change the nature of
the suit.
The next contention is that the finding in one case
may effect the finding of the other and therefore, there shall not
be any conflict of opinion. Though, most of the parties agreed to
it except the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Trust. I find
that the finding in both the cases have no bearing on the outcome
of the other. If in the suit for possession the court considers and
reaches to the conclusion that trust has no right, title to get the
possession, it still does not effect the merits of the said case as to
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
whether the trust can perform the pooja or celebrate Narsingh or
Radha Ashtami Mahotsavas and similarly vice versa that Court
reaches to the conclusion that trust has a right in the property and
there is a relationship of licensor and licensee between the trust
and the defendant still it cannot give a right to the trust to
perform pooja or to celebrate unless the same party accepted or is
held so. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this contention also.
There is no other ground made out. There is no merit
in the application. Same is dismissed.
TCR be sent back with copy(s) of the order.
Copy of the order be also given dasti to the parties,
as prayed.
Transfer petition file be consigned to record room.
(Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (Central)
Delhi/22.12.2025(D)
-- 4 of 4 --