U.P. CHURCH, CIVIL LINES, SARGODHA Versus WILLIAM HOPPER

This revision under section 115 of C.P.C. was directed against the judgment dated 13‑9‑1987 of the learned Additional District Judge, whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 11‑6=1987 dismissing the application for temporary injunction was confirmed.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner filed a suit against respondents for declaration that the suit property is a place of worship and as such respondent No.l had no right either to dispose of the same or to interfere in its possession. As a consequential relief permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the property or interfering in the possession was also prayed for. Alongwith the suit an application was made for temporary injunction restraining the respondent No.l from selling, alienating the suit property in question and disturbing in any way the possession over the suit property. The averments made in the plaint are that the respondent is bent upon selling/ alienating the above‑said church including some land without any authority as it is a place of worship and as such William Hopper respondent No.l on the basis of power of attorney cannot dispose of the same. It was averred that the respondents will obtain the possession of the disputed property without due process of law. The suit as well as the application were resisted by the respondents. The case of respondent No.l was that though the property belongs to the Sialkot Mission of United Presbyterian Church of North America but the Mission is entitled under law to dispose of the same in any manner it likes; that no place of worship exists on the property in question; and that the property being trust property, suit in the present form and without permission of Advocate‑General is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in section 92 C.P.C. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application vide order dated 11‑6‑1987. The appeal of the petitioner also failed vide judgment dated 13‑9‑1987.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Courts below refused to grant the temporary injunction holding (i) that no place of worship is situated on the suit property; (ii) that the suit has been filed by the U.P. Church without disclosing its legal capacity of legal character to maintain the suit for declaration under section 42 of Specific Relief Act; and (iii) that the suit property allegedly being a place of worship, the suit could not be instituted without the permission of the Advocate‑General in view of section 92 C.P.C.

4. The petitioner has produced on record a copy of register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1983‑84. According to its entries Church has been shown in existence on Khasra No: 256/2, Khatoni No.734, Khewat No.584‑min whereas Khasra No.75/5/6, Khatoni No.343‑min, khewat No.285 measuring 40 Kanals, 6 Marlas and 12 sq.ft. has been shown in possession of Sargodha United Presbyterian Church, North America, Mission Sialkot. It is pertinent to note that entry of Church has not been repeated in this Khasra. This goes to show that Church is not existing on the disputed land i.e. Khasra No.75/5/6, Khatoni No.353‑min, Khewat No.285 but that would not make much difference as it stands admitted that the property belongs to Sialkot Mission which is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the property vests in this Society for religious purposes. It was candidly conceded that all the properties vesting in the Society are to be used only for promoting purpose of Presbyterian Church. The nature of the property in the hand of the Society is that of religious character and its disposal/ alienation will have to be regulated like any other religious and charitable property. The suit having been instituted to challenge the right of the respondents to administer or dispose of the property belonging to public trust, the consent in writing of the Advocate‑General is necessary. The suit in the present' form is prima facie not maintainable. This alone furnishes sufficient reason for not allowing the temporary injunction on the move made by the petitioner. The other reasons given by the learned appellate Court are also weighty. The plea that on the basis of mere power of attorney, Mr. William Hopper is not entitled to dispose of the trust property, need not be gone into.

5. The net result of the above discussion is that no case for interference in the impugned judgment in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

H . B . T . / U‑15/ L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition dismissed.