1990 Supreme(MP) 17
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
D. M. DHARMADHIKARI
SHRI VENKATESH MANDIR TRUST - Appellant
Versus
JANKI PRASAD CHOUDHA - Respondents
C. R. 157 Of 1988
Decided On : 01/11/1990
AJIT SINGH, N.S.KALE, RAVISH CHANDRA AGARWAL
The 'subject matter of the trust' means the property on which the trust is founded. The subject matter of the trust may be a property or a legal person, but property of the trust as such is not necessarily the subject matter of the trust unless such property was the foundation of the trust itself.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - PUBLIC TRUST - SUIT UNDER S. 92 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION 'SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TRUST' - MEANING OF 'SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TRUST' - WHETHER THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TRUST IS SITUATE WITHIN THE LOCAL LIMITS OF THE COURT - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO ENTERTAIN THE SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in relation to the public trust known as Vaikunth Mandap Shri Venktesh Mandir Trust of Ayodhya (Faizabad) U. P. The defendants raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the trial Court at Murwara (Katni) to entertain the suit. The trial Court overruled the objection by order dated 21-1-1988 impugned in the present revision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the trial Court at Murwara (Katni) had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no part of the subject matter of the trust is situate within its local limits. The preliminary objection regarding want of territorial jurisdiction raised by the defendants is, therefore, liable to be sustained.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court at Murwara (Katni) had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under S. 92 of the CPC? 2. What is the meaning of 'subject matter of the trust'?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the expression 'subject matter of the trust' means the property on which the trust is founded. The subject matter of the trust may be a property or a legal person, but property of the trust as such is not necessarily the subject matter of the trust unless such property was the foundation of the trust itself. 2. In the present case, the subject matter of the trust was the temple of Thakur Shri Venkatesh Bhagwan known as 'vaikunth Mandap', which is situate in Ayodhya (U. P. ). No part of the subject matter of the trust is situate in Katni within the local limits of Court at Murwara (Katni ).
Final Decision: The revision was allowed and the impugned order dated 21-1-1988 the trial Court was set aside. The trial Court shall return the plaint to the non-applicant/plaintiffs under O. 7, Rr. 10 and 10a of the CPC for presenting the same in the Court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the defendants arising out of the suit under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code'), in relation to the public trust known as Vaikunth Mandap Shri Venktesh Mandir Trust of Ayodhya (Faizabad) U. P. The defendants raised objection to the jurisdiction of the trial Court at Murwara (Katni) to entertain the present suit under S. 92 of the Code and the said objection has been overruled by the Court by order dated 21-1-1988 impugned in the present revision.
( 2 ) THE revision raises important and intricate question of interpretation of the provisions of S. 92 of the Code, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits in respect of management of public charities or trusts and for grant of reliefs specified in the said section. The counsel appearing for both the sides have cited a few rulings in support of their contentions which I shall refer to in my order in the following paragraphs, but the decisions contained therein do not appear to fully deal with the question arising for decision in this revision.
( 3 ) SECTION 92 (1) of the Code reads as under:-"92. (1) In the case of any alleged breach of public charities any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the (leave of the Court) may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of trust is situate to obtain a decree - (a) removing any trustee; (b) appointing a new trustee; (c) vesting any property in a trustee; [ (cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property. ] (d) directing accounts and inquiries; (e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust; (f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged; (g) settling a scheme; or (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the trust may require. "section 92 of the Code confers jurisdiction on a Civil Court to entertain suits based on alleged breaches of any express or constructive trust created for public charitable or religious purpose and to issue necessary direction for its administration. The territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court for granting reliefs specified in S. 92 of the Code is carved out by the use of the expression "within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situate. " Before deciding the above legal question, it would be necessary to state relevant facts and the rival contentions of the parties.
( 4 ) THE facts not in dispute are that one Pandit Sitaramacharyaji of Ayodhya (U. P.) who was follower of Shri Ramanuj Sampraday, had built a temple with idol of Thakur Shri Venkatesh Maharaj, popularly known as "shri Vaikunth Mandap'. According to the plaint allegations, the founder of the trust, namely Pandit Sitaramacharyaji by a registered gift deed dated 1-7-1932 dedicated his house and the land having an area of about six bighas bearing No. 126 situate in Mohalla Ramkot Nzsarbag Ayodhya (U. P.) to the said temple for charitable and religious purposes. After the above dedication to the temple for charitable and religious purposes the above named founder described himself as Sarwarakar and executed a registered will creating a trust for management of the properties attached to the temple and constituted