IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the authority of a surviving trustee to appoint new trustees must be balanced with the need for careful evaluation of evidence, particularly expert testimony.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. By an order dated 27th June, 2022, this Court had rejected the prayer of the plaintiff for grant of ad-interim injunction and directed the parties to exchange their affidavits with respect to the application for grant of temporary injunction. Now the parties have completed their pleadings and application for grant of temporary injunction is taken up for hearing.

2. The plaintiff is the widow of Om Prakash Maniyar who died on 17th June, 2021. The defendant is the son of the deceased through the first marriage of the deceased with Smt. Narbada Devi. During the life time, Om Prakash Maniyar by an Indenture dated 8th January 1998, as a settlor created a Trust in the name of “Maniyar Charitable Trust.” The plaintiff along with her husband, Om Prakash Maniyar were the joint Trustees of the said Trust. The Trust Deed provides that the number of Trustees shall not be less than 2 (two) and shall not be more than 5 (five) at any point of time. Clause 28 of the Indenture provides that the surviving or continuing Trustee may continue to act notwithstanding any vacancy in the Trust Board. If the number of Trustees fall below the fixed number of the Trustees by the said deed, in that event the surviving/continuing Trustee shall be entitled to appoint new Trustee/Trustees.

3. The plaintiff has received information from the banker of the Trust i.e. Punjab National Bank, Chittaranjan Avenue Branch that the defendant by a letter dated 5th August, 2021, is claiming to be a Trustee of the said Trust and the authorized signatory of the bank account of the Trust. It was further informed to the plaintiff that the defendant has issued the said letter on the basis of the resolution dated 5th July, 2021 signed by the plaintiff.

4. The plaintiff did not hold any meeting of the Board of the Trustees on 5th July, 2021 and has not signed any resolution, the plaintiff realize that her signature was forged and fabricated by the defendant and accordingly, the plaintiff has sent a letter to the Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank on 1st October, 2021, informing that the plaintiff is the sole surviving Trustee of the Trust and has not appointed any Trustee. The plaintiff has also lodged a complaint with the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station. The Police has registered a case being FIR No. 193 of 2021 dated 22nd November, 2021 for the offence under Section 120B/419/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation of the case, the Police has seized documents and on completion of investigation, the police has submitted a closure report.

5. Mr. Sabyasachi Chaudhury, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the police has submitted closure report in the criminal case initiated against the defendant only on the basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert of QDEB, CID, WB wherein it is revealed that the signatures in the said two resolutions dated 5th July, 2021 contained genuine signature of the plaintiff and the same was authored by the plaintiff herself.

6. Mr. Chaudhury submitted that the report on the basis of which the police has submitted closure report cannot be relied upon as the plaintiff has already filed protest application against the final report and prayed for further investigation and the said application is pending before the Learned Magistrate.

7. Mr. Chaudhury submitted that till date the police has not seized original documents and only on the basis of the certified copy of the resolutions, the handwriting expert came to conclusion that the signature appearing in the resolutions are of the plaintiff.

8. Mr. Choudhury submitted that the defendant has relied upon the alleged documents and tried to include his name in the account of the Trust and to allow him to operate the bank account but the police has not seized the said documents from the defendant. He submits that from the seizure list prepared by the police, it is clear that the documents were seized from the bank and not from the defendant