D.N.PATEL,A.C.J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4945 of 2015.
(2.) Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there are several civil suits and criminal proceedings between Mangal Murmu and respondent No.6. Mangal Murmu has filed an affidavit in this appeal on behalf of Trust in question. It further appears that respondent No.6 in this Letters Patent Appeal, who is the original respondent No.6 in W.P.(C) No. 4945 of 2015, was authorized by the Trust to take decision on 06.03.2011 for the land in question to deal with the Tata Steel Ltd. Thereafter, it appears that an agreement was entered into on 25.02.2012 with Tata Steel Ltd. and it is alleged by this appellant that Rupees One Crore was received in advance, which is misappropriated by respondent No.6 as per their knowledge. It further appears that Mangal Murmu has filed an affidavit in this Letters Patent Appeal, who is one of the Trustees in Sidu Kanu Siksha Niketan Trust along with respondent No.6. It further appears that after empowering respondent No.6 to deal with one land with Tata Steel Ltd, respondent No.6 has reconstituted the Trust deed itself on 30.10.2012. As per this appellant, this is an unilateral action and illegal action. It further appears that respondent No.6 had reconstituted the Trust deed, as alleged by the appellant and therefore, the appellant had also reconstituted the Trust deed on 07.08.2013. It appears that this Mangal Murmu and respondent No.6 are matching with each other. There are action and reaction by both the parties. Now, there are two types of reconstituted Trust deed and therefore, there are more than one civil suits, which are as under: (a) Title Suit No. 95 of 2013 filed by Mangal Murmu, who is one of the Trustees of the Trust against respondent No.6 for restraining respondent No.6 from operating Bank Account of the Trust and for restraining respondent No.6 from work so that respondent No.6 may not work detrimental to the Trust. This civil suit is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamshedpur; (b) Title Suit No. 161 of 2013 has been filed by one Kestra Mohan Tudu as Joint Secretary of the Trust for the prayers, which are made in Title Suit No. 95 of 2013. Thus, one suit is filed by Mangal Murmu and another is filed by Joint Secretary of the Trust for restraining respondent No.6 from operating Bank Account of the Trust and for restraining him from work detrimental to the Trust. This civil suit is also pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamshedpur; (c) Title Suit No. 125 of 2013 filed by Kestra Mohan Tudu for declaration that reconstitution of the Trust deed dated 30.10.2012, which was made unilaterally by respondent No.6, may be declared as null and void. Trust deed, which was reconstituted by respondent No.6, as stated hereinabove, is under challenge in Title Suit No. 125 of 2013. It is submitted by the counsel for respondent No.6 that this title suit has been dismissed for default on 23.01.2017.
(3.) As stated above, respondent No.6 was empowered on 06.03.2011, by the Trust, for one of the properties of the Trust for dealing with Tata Steel Ltd. Now, respondent No.6 has reconstituted the Trust deed itself on 30.10.2012 and as a counter action or reaction, other Trust deed was once again reconstituted on 07.08.2013 and this reconstitution of the Trust deed is challenged by respondent No.6 in Title Suit No. 21 of 2015 with a prayer for declaration that reconstituted Trust deed dated 07.08.2013 may be declared as null and void and for recovery of the possession of the suit property where the school is running. These details have been given by the counsel appearing for respondent No.6.;