Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.
Hari Sharan Singh and Another - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 5156 of 2022
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Indian Trust Act - Trust Deed - Section 73 of Trust Act - Summary: The court dismissed the application to appoint new trustees for a temple, ruling that the trust created by the donors was a public trust and not a private trust. The provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 were found to be inapplicable. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were advised to approach the competent civil court under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the appointment of trustees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition to appoint them as trustees of a temple, claiming that the trust was a private trust and the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 were applicable. The respondents argued that the trust was a public trust and the application was not maintainable without prior permission under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trust created by the donors was a public trust, and the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 were not applicable. The application under Section 73 of the Trust Act was rejected, and the petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trust was a private trust governed by the Indian Trust Act, 1882 or a public trust requiring permission under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the appointment of trustees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the trust deed, which indicated that the trustees appointed were not family members of the donors, and the temple was open to the public for worship. The court also considered previous judgments and legal principles related to public and private trusts.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were advised to approach the competent civil court under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for the appointment of trustees.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Rahul Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Rajeev Sharma and Sri Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and perused the record.
2. This Misc. Civil Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 13.5.2022 passed by District Judge, Mirzapur in Misc. Case No.02 of 2017 (Hari Sharan Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others).
3. The brief facts of the case are that one temple of Thakur Ji was constructed by Dhaneshwari and Bageshwari sons of Devraj and deity Thakur Laxmi Narain Ji was installed therein. Dhaneshwari and Bageshwari both were unmarried. They donated their agricultural land situated in Village Bairaini Kewtabeer and Semari, Pargana Kasiwar Taluka Majhwa, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur through registered deed on 3.2.1932. It is provided in the deed that during the life time they manage the agricultural land which was donated to the temple Thakur Laxmi Narain Ji and after their death the maintenance and management of temple was conducted by Thakur Shisht Narain son of Ram Kumar Singh, Thakur Mata Prasad Singh son of Kalika Singh, Batuk Singh son of Babulal Singh Gautam and Pt. Shivbaran son of Thakur Dayal Upadhaya, all residents of the same village. It is also provided that one Chandrika son of Rajnarain Upadhaya, resident of aforesaid village will perform the worship. It is also provided that worship will be performed by Chandrika son of Rajnarain Upadhaya and his family members and in absence of any family members of Chandrika, Shisht Narain Singh, Mata Prasad and others were authorized to appoint Pujari of the temple. It is further provided in gift deed that no person is authorized to sale out or mortgage the land donated to Temple.
4. Batuk Singh, one of the trustee had moved an application in the year 1965 that all the trustees appointed by Dhaneshwari and Bageshwari except Batuk Singh died and now he is 80 years old and prayer was made that Ramadhar Singh son of Murat Narayan Singh, Indra Bahadur Singh son of Daya Ram Singh, Thakur Prasad Singh son of Sharda Prasad Singh and Vishwanath Singh son of Gudri Singh, all resident of village Baraini may be appointed as trustee as he became very old and the application was registered as Misc. Case No.13 of 1965 which was allowed vide order dated 4.12.1965 and aforesaid persons were appointed as trustees.
5. Indra Bahadur Singh, one of the trustee appointed in the year 1965 had moved an application under Section 73 of Trust Act that he is aged about 82 years and only alive trustee with the prayer to appoint his son Hari Sharan Singh and Vinod Kumar Singh son of Onkar Nath Singh, as trustee and the application was registered as Misc. Case No.27 of 2015. During the pendency of Misc. Case No.27 of 2015 Indra Bahadur Singh died on 6.2.2015 and the Misc. Case No.27 of 2015 was dismissed on 15.12.2016.
6. The petitioners had moved an application under Section 73 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 to appoint them as trustee on the ground that earlier application was filed by the trustee Indra Bahadur Singh to appoint the petitioners as trustee but on account of his death that application was dismissed and prayer was made to appoint them trustee as it was the wish of last alive trustee Indra Bahadur Singh and case was registered as Misc. Case No.02 of 2017.
7. The respondent nos.2 to 4 had moved an application for impleadment, which was allowed on 23.5.2017. They filed a detailed objection stating therein that application filed by petitioners is not maintainable as the property which was donated by Dhaneshwari and Bageshwari to the temple is a public trust and the Civil Court has power under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code regarding administration of the public trust. It is pleaded by the respondents that there was no provision in the trust deed that it is a private trust w
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to file an application under Section 92 C.P.C. for managing public trusts involving public charity, and the necessity to implead th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between private and public trusts and the application of Section 92 CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dedication of the properties for the performance of Naivedyam service to the temple constituted a specific endowment, and the application ....
The character of a temple as public or private is determined by its use for public worship and community management, not solely by registration status.
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
