Shri Digamber Jain Neminath Jinalaya Trust, Chhattarpur vs Shri 1008 Choudhary Digamber Jain Mandir Trust, Chhattarpur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(MP) 517

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
K.K. Lahoti, Ag. C.J. and Subhash Kakade, J.
Shri Digamber Jain Neminath Jinalaya Trust, Chhattarpur
v. Shri 1008 Choudhary Digamber Jain Mandir Trust, Chhattarpur
Writ Appeal No.309 of 2013 (Jabalpur) : against the order of
Single Bench, passed in Writ Petition No.18169 of 2012;
Decided on 16.9.2013.

Advocates:
Sanjay K. Agrawal with Anubhav Jain for appellant;
Sanjay Agrawal for respondent No.1;
R.D. Jain, Advocate General for respondents No.2 and 3.

Headnote:Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M.P.) -- Ss.4, 5, 6 and 8 -- another application for registration of same trust -- can be considered only by same Registrar.
       Held : In the light of the aforesaid, if respondent No.1 had preferred an application for the registration of the public trust, before the same Registrar, before whom earlier application is pending, then such an application can be treated by way of objection as already there is an application pending for the registration of the same trust and while holding an inquiry the Registrar can very well decide that which of the parties, the applicant or the objector is entitled for registration of the public trust. In that circumstances, no further inquiry or the application would be required on behalf of the objector in case the objection is sustained and it is found that the objector is the real trust.
       In view of the aforesaid, if the respondent No.3 had entertained the application filed by the respondent and had directed to proceed with both the applications simultaneously, the order passed by the respondent No.3 is within jurisdiction. 1965 JLJ 1112 (SC) followed. 1969 JLJ 873 relied on.
       yksd U;kl vf/kfu;e] 1951 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 4] 5] 6 rFkk 8 && mlh U;kl ds jftLVªhdj.k ds fy, vU; vkosnu && dsoy mlh jftLVªkj }kjk fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA
       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr ds izdk’k esa] ;fn izR;FkhZ Ø-1 us yksd U;kl ds jftLVªhdj.k ds fy, vkosnu mlh jftLVªkj ds le{k izLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftlds le{k iwoZ vkosnu yafcr gS] rc ;g vkosnu vkifRr ds :i esa ekuk tk ldrk gS ;Fkk mlh U;kl ds jftLVªhdj.k ds fy, vkosnu igys&gh yafcr gS rFkk tk¡p djrs le; jftLVªkj Hkyh izdkj ;g fofuf’pr dj ldrk gS fd dkSu&lk i{kdkj] vkosnd ;k vkifRrdrkZ yksd U;kl ds jftLVªhdj.k dk gdnkj gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] vkifRr ekU; dh tkus rFkk vkifRrdrkZ dks okLrfod U;kl ik, tkus dh n’kk esa vkifRrdrkZ dh vksj ls dksbZ vfrfjDr tk¡p ;k vkosnu visf{kr ugha gksxkA
       iwoksZDr dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq,] ;fn izR;FkhZ Ø-3 us izR;FkhZ }kjk izLrqr vkosnu xzg.k fd;k Fkk rFkk nksuksa vkosnuksa ij lkFk&lkFk dk;Zokgh djus dk funs’k fn;k Fkk] rc izR;FkhZ Ø-3 }kjk ikfjr vkns’k vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj gSA 1965 ts ,y ts 1112 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 1969 ts ,y ts 873 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14½

ORDER

Lahoti, Ag. C.J. -- 1. An important question of law has been placed for our consideration in this appeal that a subsequent application filed for registration of the Public Trust, during the pendency of the earlier application, under section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, whether it can be entertained or decided by the same Registrar, Public Trusts Act along with the earlier application or it should be kept pending till the decision on the earlier application, in the light of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant Komal Chand Jain had filed an application for registration of the appellant Trust namely Digamber Jain Neminath Jinalaya Trust, Chhatarpur under section 4 of the Act. The aforesaid Trust relates to certain properties situated at Chhatarpur along with Jain Temple.

(a) The application filed by the appellant was to the effect that a Trust be registered in the name of Shri Digamber Jain neminath Jinalaya Trust, Chhatarpur. The application was filed before the Registrar, Public Trust for which powers were delegated to him, at the relevant time, by the Collector, Chhatarpur. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Registrar, Public Trusts, vide order dated 19.7.2002 directed for registration of the Public Trust. Against this order, respondent No.1 Sukumaal Jain had filed a civil suit before the District Judge, Chhatarpur which was registered as Civil Suit No.45-A/2006. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2006, the suit was dismissed. A first appeal bearing No.576/2006 was filed before the High Court. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2011, the appeal was allowed and the order of District Judge was set aside. The suit was decreed, the order of Registrar registering the Trust dated 19.7.2002 was set aside, the matter was remanded to the Registrar, Public Trusts, Chhatarpur directing him to proceed in the matter under section 5 of the Act and to decide the application afresh, in accordance with law.

(b) When the appellant’s application was pending, respondent No.1 claiming himself to the working trustee of Shri 1008 Choudhary Digambar Jain Mandir Trust, Chhatarpur filed another application for registration of a Public Trust in respect of the same property, for which the earlier application filed by appellant, was pending.

(c) Both the applications were filed and pending before the same Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Registrar, Public Trust, Chhatarpur. The Registrar had entertained the subsequent application and issued a public notice as is required under sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Act for inviting objections. The appellant had filed a revision before the Collector against entertaining the application filed by the respondent No.1 on the ground that in view of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Act, the application filed by the respondent No.1, could not be entertained or proceeded with and, therefore, it should be dismissed.

(d) The Collector, Chhatarpur exercising the powers of revision, by order dated 31.1.2012 held that in view of sub-section (4) of section 4 of the Act, the second application filed by the respondent No.1 was not maintainable, directed that the proceedings in the said application cannot be continued and the order of Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside.

(e) Against the order of the Collector dated 31.1.2012, the respondent No.1 had filed a writ petition before the Single Bench, who by impugned order dated 7.2.2013, in Writ Petition No.18169/2012 disposed of the writ petition. The relevant operative part of the order reads thus :

“In the present case the original application filed by the respondents was at an earlier point of time and the subsequent application which was filed by the petitioner herein is after remand by the High Court in the First Appeal No.576/2006. Therefore, factually the application filed by the respondents was pending before the Registrar of Trust and it is only aft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document