Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
T. P. Naik, J.
IDOL SHRI shriji - Appellant
Versus
CHATURBHAI MANGALBHAI PATEL - Respondents
Civil Revn. 403 Of 1961
Decided On : 02/23/1962
In execution of a decree against a shebait certain property was sought to be attached and sold. Plaintiffs claiming to be next friends of Idol Shri "Shriji" of Mandir Shriji filed a suit for a declaration that the properties belonged to the Idol dedicated to it by public religious and charitable endowment, that the Shebait did not incur any loan for the benefit of the Idol, that the decree was personal against the Shebait and the properties could not be attached or sold in execution of the decree. The trust was not registered. The defendant pleaded that the suit could not be heard or decided in any Court, as the suit was one to enforce a right on behalf of the trust which was not registered in view of section 32 (1) of the M.P. Public Trust Act.
Held: The plea was well founded. It was a suit to enforce a right on behalf of the public trust, and it could not be heard or decided by the Court. [Paras 7-9]
(2) Court Fees Act - S. 7 (iv) (c) and Sch. 2, Art. 17 - decree against shebait - in execution decree holder attaching certain properties on ground that they belonged to ,he sheba it - suit by idol for declaration that properties being trusts properties of idol, were not liable for attachment in execution of decree and for injunction - suit governed by sec/ion 7 (iv) (c) and not by Article 17.
A decree was obtained against the Shebait and in execution certain properties were attached on the allegation that they were the personal properties of the Shebait. Thereupon a suit for declaration was filed claiming that the suit properties were not liable to an attachment in execution of decree against the Shebait as the properties were trust properties having been dedicated to the Idol by charitable endowment. The plaintiff also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the decree holder from proceeding with the attachment of the said properties.
Held: The suit was a suit for declaration and consequential relief and was, therefore, governed by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act and not by Article 17 of Schedule II of the Act. ILR 1945 Nag. 975 and ILR 1949 Nag. 195 relied on. [Para 11]
(3) Court Fees Act - S. 7 (iv) (c) - plaintiff's valuation must not be arbitrary.
Under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, though Court-fees has to be paid on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint, the plaintiff's valuat on must not be arbitrary or capricious. The plaintiff must endeavour to fix a fair value bearing a relation to the right litigated. If, however the plaintiff's valuation is arbitrary and unreasonable and the disparity is so great as to show that he has not endeavoured to fix a fair value at all, the Court must correct the valuation.
ILR 1938 Nag. 558 relied on. [Para 12]
( 1 ) THE order in this civil revision shall also govern the disposal of civil revision No. 463 of 1961.
( 2 ) CHATURBHAI Mangalbhai Patel of Bombay obtained a money decree for about Rs. 3,40,000/- inclusive of interest and costs against Goswamini Ratan Prabha widow of Goswami Vallabhalalji of Bombay as the heir and legal representative of her deceased husband, the original judgment-debtor. Thereafter, having got the said decree transferred to Bhopal for execution, he sought to execute it by attachment and sale of the suit properties. These properties have been specifically mentioned in the decree as belonging to the judgment-debtor.
( 3 ) LAXMINARAYAN and Purushottamdas as next friends of the applicant, Idol Shri 'shriji' of Mandir Shriji, Bhopal, filed a suit (civil suit No. 19-A of 1961) for a declaration and injunction against the aforesaid decree-holder, Chaturbhai mangalbhai and Goswamini Ratan Prabha, as defendants 1 and 2 respectively, in the Court of the Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal, inter alia, on the following allegations: (a) that the suit properties were the properties of the applicant Idol as they were dedicated to it by a public religious and charitable endowment; (b) that the judgment-debtor Vallabhalalji was only a shebait of the said public endowment; (c) that the said shebait never incurred any loan for the purpose of keeping up the religious worship or for the benefit and preservation of the property of the idol; and (d) that the decree obtained by the decree-holder Chaturbhai mangalbhai against the shebait Goswami Vallabhalalji or Goswamini ratan Prabha was personal against them and could not be executed against the property of the idol.
( 4 ) THE reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in the aforesaid civil suit were:
" (a) That declaratory decree be passed to the effect that plaintiff's properties described above and in Schedule 'a' being public endowment is not liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree against defendant No. 2 (viz. , Goswamini Ratan Prabha ). (b) That permanent injunction order be passed to restrain defendant No. 1 (viz. , decree-holder Chaturbhai Mangalbhai) from proceeding with the attachment of plaintiff's properties described above in suit in execution of the decree against defendant No. 2, (viz. , Goswamini Ratan Prabha ). "
( 5 ) THE decree-holder defendant contested the suit, inter alia, on the grounds: (1) That the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 32 of the madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act. (2) That the suit was not properly valued for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction.
( 6 ) THE first question was decided in favour of the decree-holder defendant 1, chaturbhai Mangalbhai; while the second was decided in favour of the applicant-plaintiff. Both the parties have, therefore, come up to this Court for revision of the said order under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Revision No. 403 of 1961 is the revision filed by the plaintiff Idol; while civil revision No. 463 of 1961 is the revision filed by defendant No. 1, decree-holder Chaturbhai mangalbhai.
( 7 ) IN order to understand the first question, the provisions of Section 32 of the madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act may first be noted. The section says:
" (1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which has not been registered under this Act shall be heard or decided in any Court. (2) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall apply to a claim or set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust. "
( 8 ) THE trial Court has held that the claim in suit on behalf of the plaintiff Idol was a suit 'to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust' and as the said trust was not registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, the suit could not be heard or decided by it.
( 9 ) IN my opinion, no exception can be taken to the aforesaid finding. The case of the plaintiff, as disclosed in the plaint, is that the late Seth moolchandji had not only i
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
