Back
1976 Supreme(MP) 86
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
C. Kondaiah and P. D. Muley, JJ.
SWAMI INDRADEVANAND GURU SWAMI SHRI PARMANANDJI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 173 Of 1974
Decided On : 09/07/1976
M.L.Agrawal, S.K.AGARWAL, S.L.GARG
Headnote:(1) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (MP) - Ss. 8, 5 & 7 - cause of action to file a civil suit - arises when findings are given under section 5 - publication under section 7 does not relate to cause of action to file the suit - it can be filed before the publication.
The cause of action for a civil suit contemplated under section 8 is the finding recorded by the Registrar on completion of the inquiry provided for under section 5. The cause of action being the recording of the finding by the Registrar, notwithstanding the entries being made in the register under section 7 (1) and the publishing of the same on the notice board of his office, a civil suit shall lie by any working trustees or person having interest in the trust property aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar under section 6. The stress is not on the limitation. The period of limitation prescribed under section 8 is six months from the date of the notice published under section 7 (1). Where no entry or entries have been made in the register in accordance with the findings recorded by the Registrar under section 6, the person or trustee aggrieved by such finding has cause of action to file a suit. The right to file a suit under section 8 does not depend upon the Registrar's making the entries in the register or their publishing on the notice board in accordance with section 7. AIR 1967 SC 1742 relied on. [Para 6
(2) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (MP) - Ss. 25, 26 & 27 - scope of - come into operation after registration of the public trust.
The provisions of sections 25 to 27 would come into play or operation at a later stage that is after the registration of the public trust and entries made to that effect but not before or at the stage of registration of a public trust. [Para 8
(3) Constitution of India - Arts. 226 & 227 - alternative remedy available - ordinarily no interference by the High Court.
It is now well settled that where an equally efficacious and effective remedy of regular suit is open to a writ petitioner the High Court would not ordinarily entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. AIR 1967 SC 1401 and AIR 1964 SC 1419 relied on 1967 JLJ 115 distinguished. [Para 8
( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to be the mahant of Shitaleshwar Mahadeo Temple situated at Karnalpura Indore. His mahantship descended on him according to guru-shishya parampara, a custom and usage recognized by the then Holkar state. In that capacity as mahant he is holding the properties exclusively to himself. The Registrar of Public Trusts, Indore, had issued a notice to him on equivalent Citation: 29-1-1969 under Section 5 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter called "the Act"), calling upon him to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under the Act for not getting the trust registered under Section 4 as public trust. The petitioner made representations to the registrar in writing to the effect that there was no public trust and the temple and the properties belong to him personally. Thereafter the Registrar issued a notice under Section 5 (2) of the Act for holding an inquiry as to whether the properties mentioned therein are or are not public trust properties. The aforesaid notice Annexure "d" was published in the gazette of Madhya Pradesh on 4-4-1969. The Registrar directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to enquire into the matter and submit a report. The report of the Sub-Divisional Officer was to the effect that the temple in question was not a public trust. This report was dated 15-7-1970. The Registrar remitted the matter back for further report on the question whether there is a public trust or not and in case there is a public trust, who could be made the trustees. On further inquiry the Sub-Divisional officer submitted his report on March 22, 1971, to the effect that the temple and the properties in question constitute a public trust and gave a list of persons to be appointed as trustees. The Registrar by hisorder dated May 31, 1974 (Annexure 'e') declared the Shitaleshwar Mahadeo Mandir as a public trust and the petitioner only a manager and pujari of the institution and that the properties in question belong to the aforesaid public trust He has further framed a scheme for the management of the public trust and the properties belonging to it and declared the petitioner and 13 others as trustees after removing the petitioner from exclusive management of the properties of the institution. In the aforesaid order the Registrar has given definite findings that the institution in question is a public trust and the properties are trust properties and the petitioner is not the exclusive owner of the properties and the institution and is only a manager or pujari of this temple and the properties. Aggrieved by the decision and the findings given by the Registrar the petitioner has approached this Court to have this impugned order quashed and for issuance of appropriate writ or direction for the management of the properties and to continue him in the management of the properties and the temple,
( 2 ) THE petitioner filed Annexures A, A-1, A-2 (the original gift deed), B, B-1, B2 (the original sanad), C and D (the notices under Section 5 of the Act) and the other records in support of his case. Respondents 1 to 3 filed a return to the effect that the petitioner's claim that the institution and the properties belong to him personally is not true and it is a public trust and the properties are trust properties and the petitioner is only a manager or pujari of the temple and the lands in question have been described as entered "shri Mahadev Inam Devasthan manager Vidhtanand Guru Vivekanand" in the Jild-Bandobast (settlement records) of the year 1925-26 and the ownership of the land vested in the mahadey Devsthan and Shri Indradevanand the petitioner was described as the manager, the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy by a suit under section 8 of the Act and the writ petition must be dismissed.
( 3 ) SHRI S. K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the Registrar has no power and jurisdiction, to pass the impugned order in so far as it relates
