- (1.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby an injunction has been granted to the plaintiffs and the defendant/appellant has been restrained from taking forcible possession of the suit land measuring 39 kanals 3 marlas except for the land comprising in Khasra No. 107/16 (8-7) and 17 (5-2). The case of the plaintiffs were that they were founder trustees of Guru Teg Bahadur Educational Trust vide a registered Trust Deed dated 06.08.1998. In order to establish the first rural public school, the founder trustees i.e. the plaintiffs had approached the committee of notified Gurudwara Thara Sahib Hazara for leasing the land for the said public school in the rural area for which the committee of the Gurudwara Thara Sahib Hazara passed resolution for grant of lease to the said Guru Teg Bahadur Educational Trust in pursuance of the said resolution. The Gurudwara Thara Sahib executed a lease deed dated 07.09.1998 in favour of the said trust for the period w.e.f. 01.01.1998 to 33.12.2097. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that there was a dispute between the two factions of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and the group in power has threatened to take possession of the leased property forcibly and illegal alongwith constructions made by the plaintiffs. The other members of the trust were yet to be appointed as per the terms and conditions of the Trust Deed. In order to safeguard the interest of the Trust, the founder member of the trust had instituted the present suit in the Court since the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiffs that the said Guru Teg Bahadur Educational Trust stood dissolved. Accordingly permanent injunction was sought for.
(2.) The defendant-appellant took various pleas that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit, suit was not maintainable and to complete the trust, the members from the quoram of SGPC had to be nominated. Three members would form valid quoram and the resolution passed on 20.07.1997 is no resolution in the eyes of law as two members namely Gurdip Kaur and Ranjit Singh gave in writing on 27.10.1999 that no proceedings tool place in their presence. It is also admitted by the defendant-Committee that they had not nominated the six members and the President could be nominated out of the six members and, therefore, the trust was not deemed to be formed and the alleged Trust Deed was not lawful. Accordingly, the suit was contested.
(3.) The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the issues that whether the plaintiffs were entitled to injunction, whether the plaintiffs had locus standi, whether the suit is maintainable and whether the plaintiffs had come with clean hands. After taking into consideration the evidence on the record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that a lease Deed Ex. P-3 was executed in favour of Guru Teg Bahadur Educational Trust and vide resolution dated 20.07.1997, Jaidad Sub Committee constituted by the SGPC had passed a resolution for leasing out the suit property measuring 39 kanals 3 marlas for a period of 99 years in favour of the Trust which was to have 11 founder members with six members to be nominated by SGPC and the President of the SGPC to be Ex-officio Chairman. It was also noticed that SGPC passed a Resolution No. 779 dated 19.05.1998 Ex. P-4 giving its approval for leasing out the suit property in favour of the Trust for a laudable object of running an educational institution to educate masses at large for a period of 99 years on lease money of Rs. 100 per year. This fact was also admitted by DW-1-Avtar Singh in his cross examination that the SGPC had recommended the leasing out in favour of the Trust and the lease had not been cancelled by any Court till date and that the school was being run over the suit land by the plaintiffs. The fact that the defendant-Committee had not nominated six members was also taken into account that the Committee could not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong when it has failed to appoint six members/trustees, as per the Trust which were to include 5 founder members and 6 ordinary members which were to be nominated by SGPC. Accordingly, it was held that the resolution dated 20.07.1997 passed by the Jai-dad Sub Committee could not be held to be invalid nor the lease deed dated 07.09.1998 executed in pursuance of the said resolution as well as Resolution No. 779 dated 19.05.1998.;