- (1.) All these matters were heard together as the same were connected through a common link of administration of a religious-cum-philanthropic society, named Shri Ram Chandra Mission. It was established by late Shri Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj and, on his death, unfortunately, disputes have arisen regarding his spiritual heirship to control the affairs of the Mission. The disputes have arisen regarding his spiritual heirship to control the affairs of the Mission. The disputes, gave rise to several litigations and the above four are the result of such disputes between the parties.
(2.) Special Appeal No. 829 of 1995 has been filed under the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and in this appeal the judgement and order dated 16-10-1995, passed by Hon'ble single Judge had allowed application No. A-415 filed before him and had rejected the plaint of Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1994 under Section 7, Rule 11(a) CPC. The said testamentary suit was filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena and the Administrator General, U.P. were arrayed as defendants. The suit was filed by Umesh Chandra Saxena and others for a letter of administration to Umesh Chandra Saxena in respect of the properties of Shri Ram Chandra Mission, and for a declaration that petitioner No. 1 (Umesh Chandra Saxena) was the President of the Mission, Shahjahanpur and petitioner No.2 was the Secretary thereof. There has been a further prayed that pending final adjudication interim gant may be made in favour of Umesh Chandra Saxena for the properties in question situate at Shahjahanpur with its Branches in India and abroad, or, in the alternative, to appoint a receiver in respect of entire estate of the deceased Shri Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj as also of the Mission, Application No. A-415 was filed before the Hon'ble single Judge to say that although as suit was filed to obtain a declaration, the plaint did not disclose a cause of action at all and the reliefs had been camouflaged for the reasons that the relief of declaration, as claimed by plaintiff No. 1, was barred by limitation. A device was adopted to obtain an order which could not have been achieved by a directapplication. It was contended that Ram Chandra Mission was a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and a cause of action never existed for the petitioner to make a prayer for letters of administration. The Hon'ble single Judge considered the averments of the parties and the case laws relied upon by them and had opined that the relliefs claimed in the suit cannot be granted to the plaintiffs in a testamentary proceeding and the plaint was accordingly rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC by an order dated 16-10-1995.
(3.) Special Appeal No. 561 of 1996 again proposes to be an appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. It is directed against the judgement and order dated 24-5-1996 passed by Hon. A.K. Banerji.J. whereby he had rejected an amendment application of the plaintiff-appellants in O.S. No. 200 of 1983. The suit was between Uma Shanker and others (plaintiffs) and P. Rajagopalachari and others (defendants). The order in question in Original Suit No. 200 of 1983 indicates that through application No. A-28 the plaintiff No. 1, 2 and 3 sought some amendments in the plaint of O.S. No. 200 of 1983 under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. read with Order 10, Rule 10 and Section 151, CPC. The suit was instituted in the year 1983 claiming, inter alia, that defendant No. 1 (P.Rajagopalachari) be restrained from acting as the President of Shri Ram Chandra Mission or from declaring himself as the President of the Mission and from interfering in the affairs of the Mission. The suit was filed in a representative capacity after taking permission from the Court and the suit was contested by the defendants, who had filed written statement. The suit had been pending at the evidence stage when the application for amendment, as No. A-28, was filed by only two of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 3. They desired that Ram Chandra Mission, Deewan Jograj, Shahjahanpur, through Umesh Chandra Saxena be added as defendant No. 4 and Umesh Chandra Saxena, in his personal capacity, be added as defendant No. 5. Certain averments were also proposed to be added in the body of the plaint and in the relief clause. The Court was of the view that the plaintiff had not sought any relief against the persons proposed to be impleaded and as such these persons were not proper parties and their presence before the Court was not necessary for effectual and complete adjudication of the question involved in the suit. He wa further of the view that the real purpose of the amendment application was to join Umesh Chandra Saxena as a party so that he could prosecute his own case and get a declaration that he was the President of the Mission. He accepted the defence version that under the cover of seeking amendment it was not open to any party to substitute a new cause of action or to change the nature of the suit or to substitute the subject matter of the suit. Accordingly, and for other reasons stated in the order, the Hon'ble single judge refused to accept the amendment prayer and rejected it by his order dated 24-5-1996.;