Back
High Court Of Delhi
BAKHSHI LOCHAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
JATHEDAR SANTOKH SINGH - Respondent
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL 2 of 1971
Decided On : 03/11/1971
GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE - SUIT FOR APPROVAL OF DONATION - JURISDICTION - CONSENT UNDER SECTION 92 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - VALIDITY - ADMISSION OF DESIRABILITY OF DONATION - ORDER 12, RULE 6 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a suit filed under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the respondents, members and office bearers of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, seeking approval for a donation of Rs. 2,50,000 towards the establishment of Guru Nanak Eye Hospital in Delhi. They also questioned the validity of the consent granted by the Collector under section 92 and denied the admission of the desirability of the donation as claimed by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as its value exceeded Rs. 50,000, as per the amended Delhi High Court Act, 1966. The Court found no substance in the appellants' contention regarding the factum and validity of the Collector's consent, as they failed to provide particulars of the alleged fraud or nondisclosure of facts. The Court also observed that the appellants had not raised any objection to the desirability of the donation and had even expressed their willingness to contribute. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no admission by the appellants under Order 12, rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Whether the consent granted by the Collector under section 92 was valid. 3. Whether the appellants had admitted the desirability of the donation as claimed by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Delhi High Court Act, 1966, as amended, conferred ordinary civil jurisdiction on the High Court in every suit exceeding Rs. 50,000, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law. Therefore, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. The appellants failed to provide particulars of the alleged fraud or nondisclosure of facts in obtaining the Collector's consent. Hence, their challenge to the validity of the consent lacked merit. 3. The appellants had not raised any objection to the desirability of the donation and had expressed their willingness to contribute. Therefore, there was no admission by the appellants under Order 12, rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Single Judge, approving the donation of Rs. 2,50,000 by the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee towards the establishment of Guru Nanak Eye Hospital in Delhi.
( 1 ) THE main complaint of the appellants in this case is that the learned Single Judge did not frame any Issues in the case and although contentions of fact were raised in the written statement, the. suit was disposed of without recording any evidence
( 2 ) THE suit was filed under section 92. of the Code of Civil Procedure by Jathedar Santokh Singh and four others against S. Balwant Siagh and S. Mehtab Singh initially. It was prayed that this Court may declare that the plaintiffs were competent to make an immediate donation of Rs. 2,50,000. 00towards the establishment of Guru Nanak Eye Honpital in Delhi with the aim to evolve it into a full-fledged institute of ophathalmology and to repeat and augment such donations as occasion arises and the finances of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee permit. The plaintiffs alleged that they are the members and office bearers of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee,. Sis Ganj, Chandni Chowk. Delhi, which is a religious and charitable institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and this Society manages and controls all historical Gurdwras of Delhi and was running numerous religious and charitable institutions, colleges, dispensaries etc. It was alleged that written consent of the Collector of Delhi to institute this suit was granted on September 22, 1970 to the plaintiffs who have filed the suit not only for themselves but also on behalf of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee as represented by its Secretary and President. The activities of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee are enumerated in the plaint where it is also stated that the idea of establishing a Guru Nanak Eye Hospital in Delhi was. mooted with the aim to evolve it into a full-fledged institute of ophtllalmology provided the Government was prepared to build the hospital and to run it; that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi assured full Government support; that the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee as represented byits Secretary and President. in view its financial position and should, to start with contribute Rs. 2,50,000. 00for the purpose and invite contributions from the Sikh public; that for this purpose legal opinion was taken as to whether the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committe could under its bye-laws lawfully make such contributions and upon receipt of the opinion it was decided to seek appropriate directions from a competent civil Court under section 92 of the Code of Civil procedure. The plaint recited the aims and objectives of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee which included the opening of free dispensaries. It further stated that during the financial year 1970, the income of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee was over Rs. 45,50,000. 00 and that with these funds at its disposal it had every right to donate funds to an institute of ophthalmology without offending its by-laws particularly when this donation was to be made in the Sacred name of the founder of Sikhism and in commemoration of his 500th birth day. It was averred in the plaint that the entire body of the Gurdwara Prabandhak Committe was unanimously in favour of such a donation and that the initial donation of Ra. 2,50,000. 00was to be. repeated as and when its resources allowed. It was for these reasons that the suit was filed for the approval of the Court after obtaining the necessary sanction under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 3 ) THE plaint bore a fixed court-fee of Rs. 19. 50 under Article 17 (vi) of the Second Schedule to the Court Fees Act and the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was fixed at Rs. 2,50,000. 00 which was the amount in respect of which sanction of the Court was prayed for.
( 4 ) ALONGWITH the suit, an application was filed under Order 1, rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in pursuance of which notices were issued and the four appellants came to defend the suit.
( 5 ) IN the written statement filed by the appellants it was denied that this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the sui
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
