IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL  NO. 5233   OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 227/2006]

  SHESH KARAN (D) THROUGH L.RS. ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

  KAMLESH RAMSNEHI (D) THROUGH L.RS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

By  reason  of  the  order  dated  16.1.2006,  this  Court  issued  notice  

confined to the question as to whether an undertaking should be given by the  

legal  representatives  of  the  original  plaintiff  to  the  effect  that  delivery  of  

possession of the suit property in their favour would enure to the benefit of the  

trust or the Mahant, who might be elected in future.  Learned counsel appearing  

on behalf of the respondents very fairly and categorically states that his clients  

are ready and willing to give such an undertaking before the Court concerned  

stating that the suit did not involve any question of title.  In that view of the  

matter, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

-2-   

Before parting, however, we may notice that the State of Rajasthan got  

itself impleaded in this matter and filed counter affidavit, paragraph 4 of which  

reads as under:

“On  27.04.1981,  a  Notification  was  issued  by  the  Devasthan  

Department of  the State  Government and Ram Dwara was handed  over to the Devsthan Department. The notification was published on  

25.06.1981. Copy of the notification dated 25.06.81 is annexed hereto  and marked as  Annexure  R-1.  It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  the  

deceased Respondent had filed Suit  as the 'Mahant'  of Ram Dwara  and the issue was also framed by the learned trial Judge, as to whether  

the deceased Respondent was the 'Mahant' of the Ram Dwara and is  entitled to file the present Suit? It was stated in the suit that only un-

married person can be appointed as 'Mahant'  and since the earlier  'Mahant' had married, therefore, he cannot continue as 'Mahant' of  

the Ram Dwara. The suit was not contested. The learned trial judge  decided the issue in favour of the deceased Respondent and held that  

he is  entitled to file  the suit  and being 'Mahant'  of  Ram Dwara,  is  entitled to take possession of the disputed property.”  

Learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  respondents,  however,  

submits that the contention raised by the State is wrong. In any case, we are not  

called upon to decide such a question in this appeal. It is needless to state that if  

the aforementioned contention  

-3-

of  the  State  is  wrong,  the  parties  are  at  liberty  to  proceed  to  avail  of  such  

remedies as are available to them in law.  

The appeal  is  disposed  of  with the aforementioned observations  and  

directions.

.......................J (S.B. SINHA)

.......................J   (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)    NEW DELHI, AUGUST 3, 2009.