The registration of a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, does not necessarily alter the character of properties already constituted as trust properties.

R.L. Khurana, J.—The present suit has been filed by the Advocate General of the State under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the following reliefs: (i) removing defendants No. 3 to 7 and all their member or, any of them as Trustee; (ii) appointing a receiver, meantime to manage the properties and the affairs of the trust, Bhartiya Adam Jati Sewak Sangh, Salogara, the defendant No. 2; (iii) Directing defendants No. 3 to 7 to render accounts and ordering enquiry to be held against the defendants with respect to the property owned by them in Trust for the public; (iv) Providing a scheme for the public management of the trust in which persons devoted to Social work and District Government officials be appointed as Trustees; (v) Providing for representation from amongst the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes i.e. Adamjati of H.R; (vi) Any other decree which this Honble Court may think fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; (vii) That the cost may also be ordered to be recovered out of the funds of the Trust or from defendant No. 3.

2. Briefly, the facts enumerated in the plaint may be thus stated. Defendant No. 2, Bhartiya Adam Jati Sewak Sangh, is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It has certain affiliated bodies attached to it. One of such affiliated body is defendant No.2 Parvatiya Adam Jati Sewak Sangh, another society registered under the Societies Act, 1860. Defendants No. 3 to 7 are the members of the executive body of the defendant No. 2 and are discharging the functions and obligations, as envisaged under the objects of defendants No.1 and 2 within the State of Himachal Pradesh. They are having control of certain properties situated at Salogra in Solan District, Narengabad in Sirmaur District Garela in Chamba District and Raghi and Sangla in Kinnaur District. They are also receiving grants-in-aid from Central Government as well as State Government for the purposes of discharging their obligations as trustees of the society, defendant No. 2. The activities of defendant No.2 are in the nature of public charity since it is engaged in looking after the social and economic upliftment of the weaker section of the society. In order to carry out its activities, defendant No. 1 has been raising money from various sources, including the public at large. During the period 1980 to 1988 a sum of more than fifteen lacs has been given by the Welfare Department of the State Government over and above the grants received by the defendants from District Welfare Officers, Solan, Chamba and Sirmaur. This amount is in addition to the amount of grants received by defendant No. 2 from defendant No. 1 or the Central Government.

3. Defendant No. 2, which is functioning in the State of Himachal Pradesh since 1956, has been running "Ashrams", Schools, "Bal Vadies", Creches, Hostels etc. in various parts of the State. Defendant No. 2 acquired land at Salogra in District Solan. It came into possession through its then Secretary Dharam Dev Shastri. The said Shri Dharam Dev Shastri sold about four bighas of land out of the land so acquired by defendant No. 2 without any authority and necessity. The defendants No. 3 to 7 have been mismanaging the properties of the defendant No.2 as also the grants-in-aid received by them. They have also been making gifts of the properties of defendant No. 2 unauthorisedly and thus have committed breach of trust.

4. Sometime in the year 1984, defendant No. 2 faced with the problem of indebtedness to the extent of above one lac. With the some object of paying off the debt some land was sold in pursuance of the resolution of the competent authority, that is, Working (Executive) Committee of the defendant No. 2. However, the sale proceeds received by the sale of such land were never defrayed towards the payment of debt. Defendant No.