1. In a suit for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a School Building at Smailpur instituted by Bishen Dass Dogra (the plaintiff respondent No.2) against the State of Jammu and Kashmir a plea was raised by the defendant that the suit was not maintainable as the School Building Committee Smailpur through its Chairman or its Secretary was not impleaded as a necessary party. The School Building of which the rent was claimed by the plaintiff was not the property of an individual but the same was a trust and the Committee was charged with managing its affairs. One Mukand Lal an intervener also made an application under Order 1 R. 10. of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming to be made party to the suit on the ground that he was the President of the School Committee and the building was a trust property.

2. The learned District Judge, however, found that the applicant Mukand Lal was neither a necessary nor proper party. He therefore rejected the application and overruled the contention of the defendant; and also decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of his application Mukand Lal has moved this court in revision.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Shri R. N. Bhalgotra appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the rent of the building was never received by respondent No. 2 or by Pt. Prem Nath Dogra the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff respondent No. 2. The rent was always received by the School Building Committee Smailpur of which the petitioner was its President.

5. The rent received by the Committee was always spent for the maintenance, repairs and development of the School building itself, the suit of the plaintiff was improper and he had no locus standi to bring the suit. The Committee was a necessary party under Order 1 R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it was directly interested in the subject matter of the suit. The court below had failed to consider the evidence of the petitioner and had wrongly found that the petitioner was not a necessary party to the suit.

6. I have been led through the evidence produced by the petitioner in support of his application. On perusal of the judgment of the court below it appears that the learned Judge has considered the evidence on record. According to Mukand Lal the petitioner who appeared as witness in the case the village folk met and constituted the Committee whose functions are to collect donations, receive rent of the building and make additions of rooms in the building and also manage its affairs. According to him the School building is a trust property and he is the President of the School Building Committee. But as observed by the trial court there is no proof available as to when and how the trust was created and if at all whether the trust was legally constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Act.

7. Mool Raj who also appeared in the case stated that the Committee was constituted by Pt. Prem Nath Dogra himself; that the rent of the building was paid by the Education Department in the name of the Committee but there is no documentary proof available to sustain this fact.

8. On the other hand the letters No. L.H-734/71 dated 17-6-71 and A-3/-2413 dated 4-10-71 produced by the plaintiff show that the building in question belongs to Pt. Prem Nath Dogra and it was he who added some more rooms thereto. This position obtained as late as in the year 1971. Now Subedar Parbhat Singh who is designated as the Secretary of the Committee on the other hand unequivocally stated that he was not the Secretary of any Such Building Committee, nor was any such Committee constituted at Smailpur. He affirmed that he collected rent under the instructions of Pt. Prem Nath Dogra.

9. Again Gian Chand D.W. stated that there was no trust created and no School Building Committee was constituted. Parbhat Singh was authorised by Pt. Prem Nath Dogra to collect rent for him in his individual capacity.

10. In view of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document