Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
Ram Babu Yadav & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Managing Committee, Arsh Vidya Niketan & Anr. – Respondents
C.O. 2653 of 2015
Decided on : 10-10-2018
Trust Act - Property Sale - Section 34 of Indian Trust Act - Summary: The court discussed the application under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, pertaining to the sale of property belonging to a trust. The key legal provisions of the Trust Act, the nature of the trust, and the implications of the sale were central to the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order allowing the sale of property belonging to a trust. They argued that the property was a Hindu religious and charitable endowment public in nature, and the sale was unauthorized. The court considered the nature of the trust, the validity of the sale, and the jurisdiction of the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property in question belonged to a public religious trust and was a Hindu religious and charitable endowment public in nature. It held that the sale deed executed by the opposite party was void and set aside the order allowing the sale.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the District Judge, the nature of the trust, the validity of the sale, and the applicability of the Trust Act, 1882.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the properties in question belonged to a public religious trust and were Hindu religious and charitable endowment public in nature. It found that the sale was unauthorized and void, as the trust did not fall within the purview of the Trust Act, 1882.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order allowing the sale of the trust property, ruling in favor of the petitioners without any order as to cost.
JUDGMENT :
SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.
1. Petitioners have assailed the impugned order dated 18.11.2014 passed by learned District Judge, 24-Parganas (South) at Alipore in Misc. Case No. 349 of 2013 whereby the permission to sell the property belonging to the trust was allowed on the application under Section 34 of Indian Trust Act.
2. Thus the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by District Judge, 24 Parganas(S), Alipore in Misc. Case No. 349 of 2013 whereby the Members of the Managing Committee made an application under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1882) to sell property belong to the Trust.
3. Petitioners specific case is that on 04.4.2015 one Shamim Anwar Khan i.e. the Opposite Party No. 2 herein along with his men and agents came to the temple to take forcible possession of the property of the deity. On being resisted by the devotees, followers and disciples of the Ashram, the said the Opposite Party No. 2 claimed to have purchased the property but he could not take possession of the same.
4. On 05.4.2015 the local people assembled in the temple premises to protest against the attempt to take illegal possession of the temple and the other properties belonging to the deity. The fact of protest made by the local people was also published in various local newspapers on 06.4.2015.
5. It is further submitted that petitioners are the persons interested in protection of the properties of the deity. They have come to know that one Arunava Banerjee claims himself to be the President of the Managing Committee of Arsh Vidya Niketan on whose application under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, Misc. Case No. 349 of 2013 was registered before the District Judge at Alipore. They also learnt after searches in various courts at Varanasi that a suit being No. 584 of 2008 was filed by one Ashoke Kumar Chakraborty claiming to be the trustee and shebait of Arsh Vidya Niketan Trust in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi City. In the said suit the said Arunava Banerjee was party defendant No. 6 and an order of injunction dated 21.9.2010 was passed restraining the defendants Nos. 5 and 6 namely, Amitava Banerjee and Arunava Banerjee from transferring and/or alienating the suit property which order stood extended from time to time and the same was in force till the disposal of the suit on 18.01.2015.
6. Further on necessary searches in various registration offices, petitioners have come to know that the Opposite Party No.1 herein has executed two sale deeds on 04.02.2015 thereby transferring the property in question in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2.
7. On behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 following facts are pleaded by way of rebuttal :
(a) Arsh Vidya Niketan at Varanasi is not a unit of Sadhan Samar Ashram. It is stated that Satya Deva-III Jatiraj Brahmachari was Acharya of the Arsh Vidya Niketan and had been residing within the premises of Arsh Vidya Niketan.
(b) Satya Deva-II Biswaranjan Brahmachari, who was Acharya of Sadhan Samar Ashram by written instructions nominated Satya Deva-III Jatiraj Brahmachari as the next Acharya of Sadhan Ashram from the moment of demise of Satya Deva-II Biswaranjan Brahmachari.
(c) On the basis of the said nomination the disciples of Sadhan Samar Ashram in a meeting assembled at the Ashram premises at Baranagar 24 Parganas, Bengal, on 5th December, 1937, Satya Deva-III Jatiraj Brahmachari was declared as the Acharya of Sadhan Samar Ashram and by virtue of the said nomination all movable and immovable properties belonging to Sadhan Samar Ashram at various places vested to Satya Deva-III Jatiraj Brahmachari as Acharya.
(d) The Sadhan Samar Ashram by the said Deed of Declaration of Trust made on 2nd April, 1938 declared Sadhan Samar Ashram as a Trust for Seva and Worship of Almighty and to install the image of Lord Shiva.
(e) Arsh Vidya Niketan was founded much earlier as a private non-religious trust
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
