Back
2011 Supreme(UK) 414
2011 (2) UAD 850
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
B.S. Verma
Civil Revision No. 69 of 2008
WITH Civil Revision No. 70 of 2008
SATYAGAYAN NIKETAN – Revisionist
Versus
SWAMI SHIVSHANKARGERI & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 01.08.2011
For the Revisionist :Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sec. 92 — Interest in the trust — Object of Sec. 92 Civil Code is to prevent people from interfering with the administration of public trust of charitable or religious nature — Mere statement of the applicants that they were well wishers and beneficiaries of the trust and that the society was not taking interest in the development of Hindi language — Not sufficient to entitle them to institute suit u/s 92, C.P.C. — Impugned orders, accordingly set aside. (Paras 15, 18, 19 and 27 to 31)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sec. 92 — Society and trust — Mere formation of a society under Societies Registration Act for charitable purpose not regarded as creation of a trust — Whenever a society acquires property, can not be said that it declares itself to be trustee in respect of the property — And the property belonging to the society, if not vested in the trustees, would be deemed to be vested in the governing body of the society — And society had a legal obligation to use the property, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the memorandum, Rules and Regulations of the society since creation of a public trust was not proved — Learned District Judge passed the impugned order beyond jurisdiction — Therefore, impugned orders set aside. (Paras 16, 22, 29 to 31)
¼v½ nhokuh izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908] /kkjk 92 & U;kl esa #fp dk gksuk & /kkjk 92 CPC dk mn~ns'; & /kkfeZd ;k nku[kkrs ds ifCyd U;kl esa yksxksa dk gLr{ksi djus ls jksduk gS & izkfFkZ;ksa ds dsoy bruk dg nsus ls fd os U;kl ds 'kqHk fpUrd vkSj ykHkkFkhZ gSa vkSj lfefr fgUnh Hkk"kk ds fodkl esa dksbZ #fp ugha n'kkZ jgh gS( /kkjk 92 CPC ds rgr okn nk;j djus ds okLrs mUgsa vf/kÑr djus gsrq i;kZIr ugha gS & iz'uxr vkns'k rnuqlkj fujLr fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 15] 18] 19 vkSj 27 ls 31½
¼c½ nhokuh izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908] /kkjk 92 & lfefr vkSj U;kl & lkslkbZVht jftLVªs'ku ,DV ds vUrxZr /kekZFkZ lfefr dk xBu dj ysus ek= ls fdlh U;kl ds xBu dh ekU;rk ugha nh tk ldrh & tc dHkh dksbZ lfefr dksbZ lEifÙk izkIr djrh gS rks ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd ml lEifÙk ds lEcU/k esa og vius dks ,d U;klh ?kksf"kr djrh gS vkSj og lEifÙk lfefr dh gS vkSj ;fn ;g U;kfl;ksa esa fufgr ugha gS rks ;g lfefr dh dk;Zdkfj.kh esa fufgr ekuh tk,xh & vkSj lfefr dk dksbZ dkuwuh nkf;Ro lEifÙk ds iz;ksx djus dk Fkk tks iw.kZr;k lfefr ds eSeksjsUMe] fu;ekoyh vkSj jsxqys'ku ds vuqlkj Fkk pw¡fd fdlh ifCyd VªLV ds l`tu dh izfØ;k fl) ugha gqbZ Fkh & ekU; tuin U;k;k/kh'k }kjk iz'uxr vkns'k dks {ks=kf/kdkj ds ckgj crk;k x;k & blfy, iz'uxr vkns'k fujLr fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 16] 22] 29 ls 31½
Since both the civil revisions arise out against the common order dated 12.11.2008, passed by District Judge Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 23/2004 and Misc. Case No. 7/2006, therefore, they are being decided by this judgment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to these revisions, are that Sri Mukun Ram and Sri Krit Ram filed an application No. 23/2004 U/S 92 C.P.C. and Swami Shiv Shankar Giri and Sri Lalit Singh filed an application No. 7/2006, U/S 92 C.P.C. for obtaining permission to file a suit in connection with same property. The ground taken in the above applications was that the grand father of applicant Shiv Kumar Singh, Pt. Ram Narain Mishra and Dr. Shyam Sunder Dass were the founder member of Kashi Nagri Pracharini Sabha for the publicity and development of Hindi Language. It was registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860. Its head office is situated at Banaras. One Swami Sri Satya Dev purchased some land in the year 1936 and constructed a building. On 30.11.1940 he waqfed the disputed property to Kashi Nagari Pracharini Sabha (hereinafter referred as the’ Pracharini Sabha’) on the condition that the ‘Pracharini Sabha’ will not have a right to mortgage or sale the property. The property was waqfed for the development and publicity of Hindi Language in the western India and to establish a center for publicity of Hindi. There was also recital in the deed to establish a Library and to start a ‘Bhyakhan Mala’ etc. The property shall be managed by the sub-committee constituted by Pracharini Sabha.
3. It was further alleged that the opposite parties Pracharini Sabha are not taking any interest for the purpose for which the property was dedicated. On the other hand the applicants have an interest in the development of the said property as well as Hindi Language. Their object is to fulfill the spirit of the deed.
4. The revisionists filed objections alleging therein that application is not maintainable U/S 92 C. PC. Their head office is situated at Banaras so the court has no jurisdiction. It was also alleged that the Pracharini Sabha is a registered society, therefore, the activities of the Society is carried out by the Samiti constituted as per the constitution of the Society. It is not a trust and the property in dispute is also not owned by any trust. Sri Padmakar Pandey is the Secretary of the Society and the Society is working for the development of the Hindi Language since 1893 and has published about 300 books of Hindi including six books of Swami Satya Dev. It is wrong to say that the Society has committed any breach of trust and it is also wrong to say that the Society has ever tried to sale the property in dispute. The applicants have no concern with the Pracharini Sabha and only with a view to grab the property they have filed the suit.
5. The learned District Judge after hearing counsel for parties and perusing the entire material available on record, allowed both the applications and the applicants/respondents were permitted to file a suit U/S 92 C.PC.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the Pracharini Sabha has filed these civil revisions.
7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
8. The argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionists is that Kashi Nagari Pracharini Sabha is a registered Society and not a trust and the society is absolute owner of the property of Satya Gayan Niketan Ashram, Jwalapur and the learned District Judge has committed a manifest error of law by considering the Pracharini Sabha as a trust for the purpose of allowing the application U/S 92 C.P.C. He further submitted that the Pracharini Sabha was constituted for the promotion and upliftment of Hindi Language in the country and in foreign also and purpose of the Society is charitable and formation of a society under the Societies Registration Act to carry out a charitable or useful or social purpose cannot be regarded as amounting to creation of a Trust for application of Se
