Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
D.N.Chowdhury, J.
Budha Dharmankur Sabha -Appellant
Versus
Sunil Baruah -Respondent
Civil Revision No. 14 (SH) of 1995
Decided On : 03-04-1996
BUDDHIST ASSOCIATION - ELECTION - INJUNCTION - POSSESSION - STATUS QUO - COMMITTEE - ADMINISTRATION: 1. In a dispute over the management and administration of a Buddhist Association's properties, the court held that the trial court erred in vacating an injunction order based on irrelevant considerations. 2. The court set aside the orders of the trial court and the appellate court and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 3. The court also ordered that the status quo as on the date of the hearing shall continue, with the temple under the control of the respondents and the Dharmansala under the control of the petitioner. 4. The court further directed the Chief Secretary of Meghalaya to constitute a Committee to look after the affairs of the property during the pendency of the suit. 5. The Committee shall start functioning immediately upon assumption of charge, and the status quo order shall end. 6. The Chief Secretary shall monitor the affairs of the Committee and explore measures for an early solution to the dispute. 7. The parties are directed to extend full cooperation to the directions of the Chief Secretary and the Committee.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from a suit filed by the Shillong Buddhist Association (plaintiff) against 24 defendants, seeking a declaration of ownership and possession of certain properties, including a temple, schools, and a library, and an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of the Association. The plaintiff claimed that it was gifted the land on which the properties were built by the Governor of Assam in 1923 and that it had been in possession of the properties since then. The defendants, who were newly elected office bearers of the Association, claimed that they were entitled to possession of the properties based on an order of the District Judge directing the election of an interim body to manage the Association's affairs during the pendency of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in vacating the injunction order based on irrelevant considerations, such as the orders of the District Judge and the High Court directing the election of an interim body to manage the Association's affairs. The court also found that the appellate court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal based on extraneous considerations.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in vacating the injunction order. 2. Whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal. 3. Who is entitled to possession of the properties during the pendency of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court erred in vacating the injunction order because it took into consideration irrelevant factors, such as the orders of the District Judge and the High Court directing the election of an interim body to manage the Association's affairs. 2. The court also held that the appellate court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's appeal because it failed to take into consideration the plaintiff's case and dismissed the appeal on extraneous considerations. 3. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the properties during the pendency of the suit because it was in possession of the properties at the time the suit was filed and at the time the injunction order was vacated.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the trial court and the appellate court and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The court also ordered that the status quo as on the date of the hearing shall continue, with the temple under the control of the respondents and the Dharmansala under the control of the petitioner. The court further directed the Chief Secretary of Meghalaya to constitute a Committee to look after the affairs of the property during the pendency of the suit.
2. The disputation in which we are concerned here is purely of mundane nature having all the prosaic, if not, the banel, characteristics of a litigative battle - and far away from the basic tenets of Buddhism. Instead of traditional Buddhist affirmation - "I take refuse in the Buddha, (Dharma), I take refuse in the law (Dharma), I take refuse in the Community (Sangha)," Instead, the parties though it prudent to take recourse to the litigation which will be discussed now.
3. This revision petition has arisen out of an order dated 7.2.92 passed by the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner whereby the learned Court below vacated the ad interim injunction granted earlier on 13.3.91. The said order was affirmed by the learned appellate Court, namely Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, Shillong.
4. On 18.4.90 the learned District Judge/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Misc Civil Appeal No.8 (T) of 1989 considered an appeal against an order of temporary injunction dated 11.7.89 passed by the Munsiff, Assistant to the Deputy'Commissioner at Shillong in Misc No.67 (H) of 1989 arising out of the Title SuitNo.21 (H) of 1989. By its order dated 18.4.90 the learned District Judge ordered that, (a) the suit filed in the Court of Munsiff shall be deemed to have been transferred to the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner; (b) an injunction is granted by the appellate Court against the appellants in the same manner as granted by the lower Court fresh election is held under the direct supervision of the lower Court. In revision the High Court in Civil Revision No. 14 (SH) of 1990 passed a consent order on 3-1.5.90 in presence of Shri Sunil Baruah, petitioner and Shri Jinratan Mahatherah, opposite party that the Shillong Buddhist Association will hold fresh election under the auspices of the Court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner Shillong and the holding of the election will be conducted by the Vice President of the Association within a period of 3 weeks. By an order dated 16.8.90 the said order of the High Court was further clarified and directed that the election of the interim Executive Committee of the Shillong Buddhist Association consisting of the President, Vice President, General Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurers and 9 Executive Members shall be held without any reference to the Constitution of Bengal Buddhist Association. There is further order in Civil Revision No.37 (SH) of 1990 - Civil Revision No.295 of 1990 passed by this Court on 1.11.90 with which we are not concerned. Clarificatory order dated 16.8.90 was further sought for clarification in Review Application No.8 of 1990, Review Application (T) No.3 of 1990 in Civil Revision No.3 (SH) of 1990, but the said application was rejected by this Court on 9.11.00. It further transpired that on 11.11.90 the election of the interim Executive Committee of Shillong Buddhist Association held in Buddha Vidya Niketan High School premises and the same was conducted by the Munsiff-cum Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. For holding the said election the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner requisitioned police force and {.once force was in fact provided to the learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. All these facts Were communicated by the Munsiff/Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong vide his letter No.KSS/H/T/90/232, dated 21st November, 1990. From the said report it appears that as per order of the Court Jinratan Mahatherah although was required to handover charge to the new interim Executive Committee a
AI
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
