GHAT TALAB KAULAN WALA Vs. BABA GOPAL DASS CHELA SURTI DASS
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala
Baba Gopal Dass Chela Surti Dass
Click here to view full judgement.
HEMANT GUPTA,J. -
(1.)The plaintiff is in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 18th July, 2016 whereby the
decree of two courts in its favour were set aside for the reason that
Charan Dass (PW-1) was not competent to file suit as it could not
demonstrate the nature of charities which the Trust had
undertaken and that such suit is not maintainable without
complying with the requirements of Section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'Code'). The Court held as under:
"20. For maintaining the suit qua public Trust, the leave of the Court under Section 92 CPC is mandatory. Pleadings of the plaintiff are conspicuously silent about these facts. Secondly for maintaining the suit, plaintiff has to show that there was a complete dedication of the property in favour of the general public. There has to be evidence proving beyond pale of doubt that Trust is a public Trust. Though no instruction in writing is required, to dedicate property for religious or charitable purposes. Only a clear unequivocal manifestation of intention to create a Trust and vesting thereof in the donor as a trustee is required. No such manifestation of intention to create Trust and trustee thereof have come forth on record."
(2.)The appellant had filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant Baba Gopal Dass (since deceased) to vacate the
management of Mandir, building and other property. The appellant
has alleged itself to be the owner of the suit property being
managed by the Manager and Trustees. The defendant was said to
be a Sevadar. In the said suit, the stand of the defendant was that
the representatives of the plaintiff Manohar Lal and Charan Dass
were never appointed as Managers or Trustees of the appellant and
they fraudulently got their names entered in the revenue record.
The stand of the defendant was that he did everything for the
welfare of the Mandir and never sought instructions from the
plaintiff and they have no right to seek rendition of accounts from
the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
court framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property as alleged in para No. 1 of the plaint? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff have no locus standi to file the suit? OPP.
4. Whether no cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff for filing this suit? OPP.
(3.)On issue Nos. 1 and 2, the learned trial court held that the defendant is Sevadar of plaintiff Trust and that the plaintiff does not
want to keep the defendant as he is not properly watching the
interest of the Mandir and that he has not rendered the accounts of
the income of the Temple. The Court also found that the defendant
is not claiming ownership of the property in question. The trial
court considered the statement made by the defendant in the
previous suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff on 8 th
April, 1986 restraining the defendant from raising any construction
in the shape of shops on the property in question. The Appellant
examined Harban Singh (PW-3) an Advocate of the defendant in
the previous suit, that the defendant admitted that the suit
property belongs to the plaintiff and the defendant is working only
as a Sevadar. The statement (Ex.P/1) reads as under:
"I have instructions from the defendant that the suit property belongs to the trust i.e. the plaintiff, where I am working only as a Sevadar. Whatever I will do, I will do for the welfare of the trust and any instructions given by the manager of the trust especially in regard to the construction of the shops I shall abide by in addition to the instructions pertaining to the manner in which shops are to be constructed and rent thereof collected."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.