Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana.
(2.) THE dispute pertains to the functioning of a trust known by the name of Mata Gurmail Kaur Charitable Trust (Regd.) which was set up by one Sant Prasad Singh Grewal. The suit was preferred by petitioner Gurlal Singh who was appointed as sole trustee at the time of inception of the trust. A power of attorney was executed by Sant Prasad Singh Grewal in favour of Pritpal Singh, respondent No. 2 in the year 1971. The arrangement continued till 1992 and no change was effected in so far as the status of respondent No. 2 as executor of the trust was concerned. He continued to discharge the business on behalf of the trust. The petitioner filed a suit on 3.4.2007 and made multifarious prayers which are reproduced as under - It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit be decreed: (i) by way of granting a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 2 -Shri Pritpal Singh Grewal from acting, posing and conducting himself as the Trustee of Mata Gurmail Kaur Charitable Trust (Regd.); (ii) decree of possession of the properties of the Trust defined in the plaint and/or any other property which may have come into existence as consequential relief inclusive of any actionable claims of the Trust be granted in favour of the plaintiff -the Sole Trustee of the Trust; (iii) the accounts of the Trust be rendered from the date of constitution of the Trust and as well from the date when defendant No. 2 projected himself, fraudulently and illegally, the Trustee of Mata Gurmail Kaur Charitable Trust (Regd.); (iv) any other additional or alternative relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case which have been explained in the plaint or which may emerge during the course of the proceedings before this Hon'ble Court, be also granted to the plaintiff.
(3.) ALONG with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was filed which was disposed of by the learned trial Court vide order dated 30.4.2007. The operative part of the order of the trial Court reads as under: So, in my view the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of injunction at this juncture. However, it is made clear that because the defendant No. 2 is not Trustee of the Trust, hence he has no right to alienate the property of the Trust to any 3rd party and the defendant No. 2 in reply to application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. specifically admitted that he is not trying to alienate the property of the Trust to any 3rd party. Hence, it is made clear that the defendant No. 2 will not create any 3rd party right of the property of the Trust except by giving the property on Chakota as he was giving it for the last 18 years and all the income and expenditure will be done by the defendant No. 2 through bank and the accounts of the Trust duly audited by the competent person will be rendered in the court after every three months. The defendant No. 2 will not represent himself as a Trustee to anyone. He can only manage the property of the Trust as he was managing the property of the Trust for the last 18 years and all the income and expenditure will be done by the defendant No. 2 through bank and the accounts of the Trust duly audited by the competent person will be rendered in the court after every three months. The defendant No. 2 will not represent himself as a Trustee to anyone. He can only manage the property of the Trust as he was managing the property of the Trust for the last 18 years. The question regarding disclaimer of the Trust of the plaintiff will be decided after taking of evidence in this case. With these observations, the application in hand is disposed off.;