DEO PARASNATHJI MOUSUMA GHANSHYAM BUDHU SINGHAI Vs. FIRM KANHAIYALAL KOMALCHAND GODRE
LAWS(MPH)-1969-1-19
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on January 10,1969

DEO PARASNATHJI MOUSUMA GHANSHYAM BUDHU SINGHAI Appellant
VERSUS
FIRM KANHAIYALAL KOMALCHAND GODRE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff-trust Shri Deo Parashnathji at Sagar is directed against an order of the Second Additional District Judge, Sagar, dated 4th August 1967, holding that it had not been duly registered as a 'public Trust' under the madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 and directing in terms of section 32 (1)thereof that the proceedings in suit shall remain stayed until the trust gets itself duly registered as such,
(2.) THE material facts are these. The parties admittedly stand in the relation of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff sued for ejectment of the defendant from a house belonging to the trust, alleging itself to have been registered as a public trust. The defendant, however, pleaded section 32 (1) as a bar to the tenability of the suit, on the ground that the trust had not been validly registered. The Minutes of the proceedings, Ex. P-11, show that the application under section 4 for its registration as a public trust had been entertained by the Deputy Commissioner, Sagar as the Registrar of Public Trusts and forwarded for enquiry and report to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sagar. In due course, the Additional Deputy Commissioner recommended that the trust be registered as a public trust, vide his report dated 23-10-1954 to the deputy Commissioner. It, however, appears that the file, although marked to the Deputy Commissioner, was, in fact, dealt with in the final stages, by one shri S S. Shukre, Extra Assistant Commissioner, Sagar, who, styling himself as the "personal Assistant and Registrar, Public Trusts, Sagar", passed the impugned order dated 12-11-1954, registering the plaintiff-trust as a public trust under section 6 of the Act. It is the validity of that order which is in question in these proceedings.
(3.) AFTER a trial of the relevant issues, the learned Judge had previously held that though the plaintiff was a public trust, it had not been validly registered in the manner required by law and accordingly, made a direction that it should get itself duly registered. Against that order, the plaintiff had filed Shri Deo parasnathji v, Kanhaiyalal Komalchand Godre (Civil Bern. No. 888 of 1865.) which was allowed by Shiv-dayal, J. , by his order dated 1-11-1965 and the suit remanded for a trial on the following additional issues :- "7- Whether the order dated 12-11-1951 was passed by Shri 8- S. Shukre, Personal Assistant and the Registrar of Public Trust? 8. If so, whether Shri Shukre was the authority competent to act as Registrar, Public trusts, under the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951?" On issue No. 7 the learned trial Judge has now found that the impugned order, ex. P-1 dated 12-11-1954, was passed by Shri S. S. Shukre in his capacity as the personal Assistant and Registrar of Public Trust, Sagar, and on issue No. 8, that Shri Shukre was not an authority competent to act as the Registrar of Public Trusts under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. He has further held that section 34-A, inserted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1964 (XVII of 1964) does not validate the impugned order, because there was no "order in writing" by the Registrar of Public trusts, delegating all or any of his powers and duties to him, as envisaged by that section. The contention that Shri S. S. Shukre had acted within his jurisdiction, in registering the plaintiff-trust as a public trust can hardly be accepted. In Shall Fariduddin v. Mohd. Akbar (1957 N L J 651.) the Nagpur Bench (Mudholkar and Kotval, JJ.) of the Bombay High Court held that the Deputy Commissioner is a persona designata under section 3 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts act and consequently he alone can act as the Registrar of Public Trusts. A similar question arose for consideration in this Court in Budhulal v Registrar of public Trusts (1864 M P L J 887.) wherein Naik and Bhargava, JJ. , following the view in Shah fariduddin's case supra), held that the principles enunciated therein fully applied and as the Collector was a persona designata under the Act, he alone could act as the Registrar of Public Trusts and no one else. In that view, the learned Judges struck down an order of the Additional Collector Jabalpur, purporting to act as the Registrar of Public Trusts, stating that his action in doing so was wholly without jurisdiction. That being so, the question is, whether Shri s. S. Shukre was on 12-11-1954, competent to act as the Registrar of Public trusts. On that aspect, Gourishanker Agarwal (D. W. 8) has stated that at the relevant time Shri S. S. Shukre was only a Senior Deputy Collector (perhaps, what he means is that he was an Extra-Assistant Commissioner), and that testimony stands unrebutted. This indicates that Shri S. S Shukre was not the Deputy Commissioner of Sagar on 12-11-1954 and therefore had no authority to act as the Registrar of Public Trusts. Although this witness was unable to tell us who was the Deputy Commissioner or the Registrar of Public Trusts in that district on that day, the learned trial Judge has taken the care of scrutinising some of the issues of the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra of that period and these indicate that Shri T. C. A. Srinivasavardhan, I. A. S. (now on deputation to the Government of India, in the Ministry of Home Affairs) was the then deputy Commissioner of Sagar and was in that capacity, therefore, the Registrar of Public Trusts. It must accordingly be held that Shri S. S. Shukre had acted without jurisdiction in passing the order in question.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.