Trust vs. Sevadar Legal Battle

In the case of Trust vs. Sevadar, the Trust, represented by the petitioner, has taken legal action against the Sevadar, the respondent, for negligence in managing the Mandir’s interests. The court has addressed key questions regarding the applicability of Section 92 of the Code and dismissed concerns about misappropriation. This case highlights the importance of upholding trust obligations in charitable and religious contexts, ensuring proper management and compliance with legal responsibilities.


  • Defendant is Sevadar of plaintiff Trust
  • Plaintiff does not want to keep the defendant due to negligence in watching the interest of the Mandir
  • Defendant has not rendered accounts of the income of the Temple
  • Defendant is not claiming ownership of the property in question

Also Read: Interpretation of Mandatory Statutory Time Limits


  • The appellant filed a suit for a mandatory injunction against Baba Gopal Dass to vacate the management of the Mandir and other property.
  • The appellant claimed ownership of the property managed by the Manager and Trustees.
  • The defendant, Baba Gopal Dass, was described as a Sevadar.
  • In a previous suit for injunction filed in 1986, the defendant admitted that the property belonged to the plaintiff and that he was working only as a Sevadar.
  • The defendant’s stance was that the plaintiff’s representatives were not appointed as Managers or Trustees and had fraudulently entered their names in the revenue record.
  • The defendant claimed to have worked for the welfare of the Mandir without seeking instructions from the plaintiff, asserting that the plaintiff had no right to demand accounts from him.
  • Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court’s decision was erroneous
  • Argued that Section 92 of the Code is for invocation of jurisdiction against the Trust
  • Asserted that the suit is maintainable

Also Read: Challenging Legal Analysis in Acquittal Reversal


  • The High Court’s order regarding the first substantial question of law is not sustainable as Section 92 of the Code does not apply to a suit filed by a Trust against a Sevadar.
  • The second substantial question of law was upheld, stating that Ram Niwas, as the legal representative of deceased Baba Gopal Dass, does not have a larger interest than what was originally vested in the defendant.
  • The apprehension of the respondent regarding the misappropriation of compensation by the Trust was deemed not tenable.
  • The High Court’s finding that Ram Niwas was merely a member of the public offering services to the Temple, and not appointed as the Chela of Baba Gopal Dass, was affirmed.
  • The suit filed by the Trust was found to be maintainable and rightfully decreed by the First Appellate Court.
  • Sevadar can be removed if they assert title hostile and fail to establish it
  • Court relied on the case of Bhagwan Dass and others v. Jairam Dass for this principle
  • Sevadar’s claim of title must be proven or they can be removed
  • Section 92 of the Code provides rights in case of alleged breach of express or constructive trust created for public charitable or religious purpose.
  • The section aims to protect the interests of the beneficiaries of charitable or religious trusts.
  • It allows any person to approach the court for enforcing the trust in case of breach.
  • The provision ensures that trusts meant for public purposes are managed and utilized appropriately.
  • Courts can intervene to safeguard the assets and ensure proper functioning of charitable and religious trusts.
  • The apprehension expressed is misconceived.
  • The scope of the present suit and appeal does not cover the mentioned apprehension.

Also Read: Appellant v. High Court of Rajasthan: Clarification on Export Incentives Scheme


  • Order of the High Court regarding the first substantial question of law overturned
  • Suit decreed in favor of the appellant, a registered Society
  • Statutory obligations of the appellant as a registered Society highlighted
  • Appeal allowed as a result of the decree in favor of the appellant


Case Number: C.A. No.-000724-000724 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *