SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(All) 1006

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
LAL CHANDRA JAIN AND ANOTHER ....Appellants
Versus
SUPARASDAS JAIN AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(First Appeal No. 216 of 1972, decided on 12th February, 2016)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Ganesh Prasad, C.K. Parekh, Madhur Prasad and Dharam Pal Singh for the Appellant; H.C. Tewari, A.K. Rai, A.K. Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh, M.C. Tiwari, M.P. Singh, R.K. Tiwari, S.O.P. Agarwal, Shashi Nandan,V.K. Singh, Virendra Kumar, Virendra Singh, Apoorva Bhatt, Smt. Swati Agarwal and N.S. Dwivedi for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 92, Order 1, Rule 10—Necessary Party—Trust—Held, non-impleading of Trust goes to root of the matter—Thus for non impleading of Trust, suit could not have proceeded and was not maintainable. [Para 29]

       (B) Trusts Act, 1882—Section 92—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 92—Trust—Suit alleging mismanagement of Trust property—Once there is no ground of mismanagement or misappropriation of Trust—Suit under Section 92 CPC would not be continued—There is no ground available to manage and continue a suit under Section 92 CPC—Held, suit was not maintainable. [Para 32]

       (C) Societies Registration Act, 1860—Trust—Registration—Trust was already registered in office of Registrar—It had become a legal person in law and is governed by Act, 1882—Held, a registered Trust would not be further registered under Act, 1860 as a Society. [Para 39]

       Result; Appeal Allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Dharam Pal Singh learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri C.K. Parekh for appellants and Sri Virendra Singh, Sri Apoorva Bhatt, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh and Smt. Swati Agarwal, Advocates for respondents.

2. This is defendants appeal under Section 96, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) read with Section 47 of Charitable Endowments, Act VIII of 1890 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1890’) arising from judgment and decree dated 17.8.1972 passed by Sri O.P. Saxena, Ist Additional District Judge, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 6 of 19701 (Suparas Das Jain and others v. Kumari Padma Agrawal and others)

3. The plaintiffs instituted aforesaid suit under Section 92 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1882’) in the Court of District Judge, Varanasi, after having obtained permission of Advocate General. The suit was instituted seeking relief of a direction for framing of new scheme for management of Trust in question, appointment of new Trustees, accounting of money realised by defendants from 19.9.1964 and onwards and to pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with management of Trust property.

4. The parties to the suit belong to a common tree. Pedigree of family as supplied to Court below, vide Paper No. Ka 1/66, and as made available to this Court, has a minor and negligible variance. However, this Court is referring to pedigree which is on record as Paper No. Ka 1/66. In the pedigree given in Paper No. Ka 1/66 and one which has been supplied to this Court, only difference is that entire tree is developed from common ancestor Chhote Lal in Paper No. Ka 1/66 while one supplied to this Court it is commenced with Chhote Lal, he had only one son Majlia Rai and thereafter the entire family tree has grown up and prefer to refer family tree as shown in Paper No. Ka 1/66 and it is as under.

Chote Lal

Gopal Chand

Surat Singh

Ram Das

Bisessar Pd.

Beharilal (Creator of Trust)

Hajarilal

Guljarilal

 

Harakh Chand

 

Nanak Chand

Gyan Chand

 

Chandulal

Manik Chand

 

Laxmi Chand

Munna Lal

Bimal Chand (Defandant 7)

Nirmal Chand

Jain Kumar

Jitendra Kumar

Govind Chand     

Hiralal     

Motilal

Pannalal

Moti Chand

Hari Chand

Bhagwan Das

Sri Chand

Lalloo Ji

Raghunath Das

Gokul Chand

 

Maksudan Das

Mahdin Pd.

Krishna Das

Dauji

Makund Lal

 

Ratan Chand (Defandant 9)

Dr. Padma Agarwal (Defandant 1)

Gulab Chand

Lal Chand (Defandant 5)

Gopal Chand (Defandant 6)

Nem Chand

Vijay Kumar

Narendra Kumar

Rajendra Kumar (Defandant 11)

Anat Kumar

Pannalal

Ashok Kumar

Vinod Kr.

5. Chhote Lal had three sons and from his sons he had three grandsons Beharilal, Hajarilal and Guljarilal. Sri Beharilal established a Trust vide Trust Deed dated 1.8.1976, registered on 21.8.1976 called as “Beharilal Digamber Jain Mandir and Dharamshala”.

6. During life time of Sri Beharilal, Trust was to be managed by Creator himself. After his death, Trust Deed contemplated a managing body constituting (i) Babu Channu Lal Jauhari son of Shiv Bol Babu (ii) Babu Prabhu Das (iii) Babu Ram Das (iv) Babu Harakh Chand (v) Babu Lallooji (vi) Babu Chhedi Prasad (vii) Babu Manohar Das (viii) Babu Channu Lal son of Bhairo Prasad (ix) Babu Braj Ratan Das alias Lalloo Ji (x) Babu Shankar Chand (xi) Babu Mahavir Prasad. It is further said that after the death of any of aforesaid persons, the members of his/their family shall form managing body.

7. Sri Dau Ji son of Raghunath Das was the last manager of Tr














































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top