Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Lakhpat Rai - Appellant
Versus
Durga Prasad & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 23-05-1928
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application in revision by one Lakbpat Rai who was manager of a Dharamsala in Meerut, under a deed executed by Mt. Sundar Kunwar on 9th December 1908.
2. One Durga Prasad, who describes himself as a respectable Hindu citizen of Meerut, a Brahman by caste, and a Secretary of the Dharmasthan Sudhar Committee, Meerut, presented an application to the District Judge of Meerut praying that the trustees of the Trust created by Mt. Sundar Kunwar be directed to furnish the petitioner through the District Judge (1) with particulars as to the details of the trust property as they existed on the date of the application (2), the names of persons to whom each property is given on rent (3), the income derived from the trust and the expenditure incurred and (4) the account of the Trust for the last three years to be examined and audited through some certified auditor.
3. Objection was taken by Lakhpat Rai, among other grounds, on the ground that the petitioner was not a person interested in the trust within the meaning of Section 3 Act 14 of 1S20 and, therefore, the order of the learned District Judge was incompetent. Section 3 provides that any person having an interest in any express or constructive trust created or existing for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature may apply by petition to the Court for reliefs for which the present petitioner has applied.
4. We are of opinion that the words "having an interest in a trust" must in each case depend upon the nature of the trust. Lakhpat Rai was the trustee of a Dharmsala constructed and dedicated under the deed of 9th December 1908, and Durga Prasad in our opinion had an interest in that trust inasmuch as he was entitled to stay in that Dharmsala and as Secretary of the Dharmasthan Sudhar Committee, Meerut.
5. We are of opinion that the view taken by the learned District Judge is correct and this application is dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant personally.
6. The stay order of this Court dated 16th June 1927, is discharged.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
