Back
2008 Supreme(Pat) 1767
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mihir Kumar Jha, J.
Bihar State Hindu Religious Trusts Board
Versus
Mahanth Rama Kant Das
C.R. No. 1530 of 2008 1827 of 2008
Decided On : DECEMBER 15, 2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a trustee and the possession of trust properties must be in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board Act, 1950.
Headnote:
Trust Dispute - Management and Control - Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board Act, 1950, Section 22(h)(iii), Section 32, Section 33(1), Section 33(3) - The court discussed the ongoing dispute over the management and control of a public religious trust, Baba Bhikham Das Thakurbari, in Patna, and the legal provisions under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board Act, 1950. The court set aside previous orders and directed the Board to appoint a competent person as trustee and restore possession of the trust properties to the Trust Committee.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the management and control of a public religious trust, Baba Bhikham Das Thakurbari, in Patna, due to conflicting claims to the position of Mahanth and the management of trust properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the previous orders allowing substitution of the trustee were not in accordance with the law and set them aside. It directed the Board to appoint a competent person as trustee and restore possession of the trust properties to the Trust Committee.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order allowing substitution of the trustee was legal and in accordance with the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order allowing substitution of the trustee did not fulfill the requirements of the law and directed the Board to appoint a competent person as trustee and restore possession of the trust properties to the Trust Committee.
Final Decision: The court allowed one Civil Revision Application and dismissed another, setting aside previous orders and directing the Board to appoint a competent person as trustee and restore possession of the trust properties to the Trust Committee.
Mihir Kr.Jha, J.
1. Heard Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1530 of 2008 and Mr. S.K. Mazoomdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 1827 of 2008.
2. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No. 5539 of 2008 in Civil Revision No. 1530 of 2008 the delay in filing of the aforesaid Civil Revision Application is condoned.
3. Coming to the merits of the case, it appears that the dispute in hand is confined to the right of managing and controlling the affairs and property of an old public religious trust namely Baba Bhikham Das Thakurbari, Bari Path, Kadam Kuan, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Thakurbari). As is well known that dispute in such public religious trust emanate and thrive basically for controlling the properties of the, Trust. Here also it is the huge trust property in the heart of town of Patna valuing several crores of Rupees, which has led to a continuing ongoing legal battle with inglorious past and uncertain future which has in process also doomed its present.
4. It would thus be necessary for this Court to note certain events which had taken place both prior to and after the date of 11th April, 2007, which for (sicmore ?) than one reason had became a fateful day when this court had issued certain directions for management of the property of the said trust including the Thakurbari.
5. All that in this regard has to be noticed is that ever since 1952 there has been ongoing a marathon race for the coveted post of Mahanth and managing the property of the trust including its Thakurbari in the city of Patna. It is said that a Will dated 21.12.1952 executed by the then Mahanth Ram Krishna Das in favour of Ram Rajeshwar Das marked the beginning of the dispute because it was this Will and a subsequent Will of the year 1960 authored by the same person namely Mahanth Ram Krishna Das in favour of one Chandramani Das which led to the dispute for the office of the Mahanth of the said Thakurbari. When Mahanth Ram Krishna Das had died in 1961, Ram Rajeshwar Das in fact had filed a succession case in 1961 being Succession Case No. 188 of 1961 on the basis of Will dated 21.12.1952 and thereafter in 1963 Chandramani Das had filed a Letter of Administration case on the basis Will of the year 1960. The aforesaid Letters of Administration case on the contest of Ram Rajeshwar Das was converted into a Title Suit No. 22 of 1966 and the trial court by its two separate judgments dated 28.5.1977 had allowed succession case in favour of Ram Rajeshwar Das while Title suit filed by Chandramani Das was dismissed.
6. The order passed in Succession case in favour of Ram Rajeshwar Das became final, inasmuch as, a Civil Revision filed by Chandramani Das was dismissed. That, however, was not the end of the dispute because Chandramani Das immediately thereafter filed a Title Suit No. 225 of 1978 with regard to claim to the office of the Mahanth on the basis of the Will of the year 1960. It is found that an order of injunction was also passed in that Title Suit No. 225 of 1978 in the year 1979, which again was assailed by Ram Rajeshwar Das by filing a Miscellaneous Appeal and the same was tagged alongwith First Appeal No. 500 of 1977 which was filed by him against the decree in Title Suit No. 22 of 1966. The First Appeal and the aforementioned miscellaneous appeal were disposed of by this Court by order dated 11.11.1998 reported in 1999(1) PLJR 443 and while first appeal was dismissed, the miscellaneous appeal was allowed setting aside the aforesaid order of injunction. The resultant attempt before the Supreme Court at the instance of Chandramani Das failed and it can thus be safely said that in that round of litigation Ram Rajeshwar Das was found to be Mahanth on the basis of Will executed by the admitted Mahanth Ram Krishna Das, Ram Rajeshwar Das had thereafter filed an execution case now for executing the order dated 28.5.
