Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Smt. Sunita Yadav, J.
Trimurti Charitable Public Trust and Another v. Muni Kumar Razdan and Others
First Appeal No. 1074 of 2018 (Gwalior); against the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2018 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2014;Decided on 8.11.2023.
¼1½ foy && lcwr dk Òkj && foy dk fu"iknu ,oa foy ls layXu lansgtud ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk Li"Vhdj.k && mÙkjkfèkdkj vfèkfu;e] 1925 dh èkkjk 63 rFkk lk{; vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 68 d¢ vuqlkj] lcwr dk Òkj lnSo foy çfrikfnr djus okys ij g¨rk gSA ,vkbvkj 1955 ,llh 346] ,vkbvkj 2003 ,llh 761 rFkk ,vkbvkj 1977 ,llh 74 vuqlfjrA ,vkbvkj 1991 ,eih 368 voyafcrA¼iSjk 36 ls 38 ,oa 54 ls 56
¼2½ lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 && èkkjk 101 rFkk 102 && lcwr dk Òkj && oknh ij g¨rk gS && ijarq foy d¢ lacaèk esa lcwr dk Òkj lnSo foy çfrikfnr djus okys ij g¨rk gSA ¼iSjk 36 ls 38] 54 ,oa 55
¼3½ foy && voyacuh;rk && çfroknhx.k dh lk{kh dh vfÒj{kk ls foy çLrqr && uksVjh ds jftLVj esa Nylk/ku && çfroknhx.k foy lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgs && foy dk fu"iknu vfo'oluh;A ¼iSjk 45 ls 48
¼4½ lk{; vfèkfu;e] 1872 && èkkjk 65 rFkk 66 && n¨ foyksa dh Nk;kçfr;k¡ && lk{; esa xzká;rk && çfrijh{kk esa ys[kd }kjk n¨u¨a nLrkost Lohdkj fd, x, && lk{; esa xzká gSaA ¼2015½ 1 ,llhlh 708 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 48
¼5½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 4 && U;kl dk jftLVªhj.k && foy d¢ vkèkkj ij jftLVahd`r U;kl dh oSèkrk && foy dk fu"iknu ,oa lcwr vfo'oluh; ik;k x;k && ,slh foy d¢ vkèkkj ij U;kl dk xBu fofèk d¢ fo#) && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us U;kl d¢ xBu ij vfo'okl dj d¨Ã xyrh ugÈ dhA ¼iSjk 53 ls 55 ,oa 56
¼6½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 8 rFkk 14 && foy d¢ vkèkkj ij U;kl dk xBu && U;kl foys[k ij vk{ksi && U;kl d¨ vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr djus d¢ fy, flfoy okn && vkifÙk fd U;kl foys[k vk{ksfir ugÈ fd;k x;k ,oa okn pyus ;¨X; ugÈ && vfÒopu miyC/k fd mä foys[k vk{ksfir rFkk mls vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr fd, tkus dk nkok fd;k x;k && vfÒopu¨a dh vis{kk d¢oy nwljs i{kdkj d¨ ;g voxr djkuk gS fd D;k fookfnr gS && oknh d¨ foy ij vk{ksi djuk vko';d ugÈ && foy lkfcr djus dk Òkj lnSo foy çfrikfnr djus okys ij gksrk gS && foy lkfcr ugÈ && vkifÙk@rdZ Lohdk;Z ugÈA ,vkbvkj 1966 ,llh 735 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 53 ls 55
¼7½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 6 fu- 13 && vfÒopu¨a dh vis{kk && vis{kk d¢oy nwljs i{kdkj d¨ ;g voxr djkuk gS fd D;k fookfnr gS rFkk D;k U;k;fu.khZr fd;k tkuk gSA ,vkbvkj 1966 ,llh 735 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 53
¼8½ çFkk && vkns'k çnf'kZr ugha djuk && U;k;ky; dh Òwy gS && i{kdkj d¨ nafMr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA ,vkbvkj 1965 ,llh 1744 rFkk ¼2019½ 2 ,llhlh 186 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 57 ls 59
¼9½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 8 && vko';d i{kdkj && U;kl d¨ vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr djkus d¢ fy, flfoy okn && y¨d U;kl dk jftLVªkj vko';d i{kdkj ugÈA ,vkbvkj 1965 ,llh 1744 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 69
¼10½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && èkkjk 80 && e-ç- y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 && èkkjk 8 && U;kl d¨ vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr djkus d¢ fy, flfoy okn && y¨d U;kl d¢ jftLVªkj d¨ lwpuki= fn;k x;k && jkT; ljdkj d¨ jftLVªkj d¢ ekè;e ls lwpuki= Òstuk U;k;ky; dk drZO; Fkk && ,slk vuqikyu fd;k x;k && flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh èkkjk 80 d¢ lwpuki= ds fo"k; esa vkifÙk jkT; d¢ vfrfjä vU; d¨Ã i{kdkj ugÈ mBk ldrkA ,vkbvkj 1960 ,llh 1399 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 70
¼11½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && èkkjk 11] Li"Vhdj.k ¼ik¡p½ && iwoZ U;k; dk fl)kar ykxw g¨uk && ySVlZ isVsaV vihy dk fu"d"kZ fd U;kl foys[k dh oSèkrk rFkk l{kerk d¢ xq.kkxq.k dk fofu'p;u flfoy okn esa leLr rduhdh vkifÙk;¨a ij fopkj djus d¢ i'pkr~ fd;k tk,xk && Li"Vr% bl vihy esa iwoZ U;k; xfBr djrk gSA ¼iSjk 72
¼12½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 4 rFkk 8 && foy d¢ vkèkkj ij U;kl dk xBu && U;kl vÑr ,oa 'kwU; Ĩf"kr djus d¢ fy, flfoy okn && vkifÙk fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; us foy dwVjfpr vfHkfuèkkZfjr djus esa xyrh dh D;¨afd ,slk d¨Ã vuqr¨"k ugÈ pkgk x;k Fkk && ,slh vkifÙk Lohdk;Z ugÈ && gd dh Ĩ"k.kk dk c`gr~ vuqr¨"k pkgk x;k gS && c`gr~ vuqr¨"k esa vkns'k jí djus] foy dwVjfpr ,oa xढ+h gqbZ Ĩf"kr fd, tkus tSls vU; çdkj d¢ vuqr¨"k lfEefyr gSA ,vkbvkj 1956 cacbZ 243 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 73
¼13½ ifjlhek vfèkfu;e] 1963 && èkkjk 5 && ykxw g¨uk && e-ç- y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e d¨ ykxw ugÈ g¨rhA ¼iSjk 66
¼14½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1882 && èkkjk 1 && ykxw g¨uk && e-ç- y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e d¨ ykxw ugÈ g¨rhA ¼iSjk 65
¼15½ y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1951 ¼e-ç-½ && èkkjk 8 && flfoy okn && y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e] 1882 dh èkkjk 1 e-ç- y¨d U;kl vfèkfu;e d¨ ykxw ugÈ g¨rhA ¼iSjk 65
¼16½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 20 fu- 12 rFkk èkkjk 96 && var%dkyhu ykÒ dk voèkkj.k && U;kl d¢ çkfèkdkj d¢ vèkhu laifÙk çfroknh d¢ dCts esa && U;kl dk xBu lkfcr ugÈ && fopkj.k U;k;ky; us okn çLrqr djus d¢ fnukad ls #- 15]000@& çfrekl var%dkyhu ykÒ çnku fd;k && og mikarfjr dj okn çLrqr djus d¢ fnukad ls #- 2000@& çfrekl rFkk okni= d¢ la'k¨èku ds fnukad ls #- 15]000@& çfrekl fd;k && bl lhek rd vihy va'kr% LohdkjA ,vkbvkj 1984 ,eih 1 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 75 ls 77
(1) Will -- burden of proof -- execution of Will and explanation of suspicious circumstances attached to execution of Will -- burden of proof always lies on propounder of Will as per section 63 of Succession Act, 1925 and section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872. AIR 1955 SC 346, AIR 2003 SC 761 and AIR 1977 SC 74 followed. AIR 1991 MP 368 relied on. [Paras 36 to 38 & 54 to 56
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 101 and 102 -- burden of proof -- lies on plaintiff -- but regarding Will, burden of proof always lies on propounder of Will. [Paras 36 to 38, 54 & 55
(3) Will -- reliability -- Will produced from custody of witness of defendants -- manipulation in notarial register -- defendants failed to prove Will -- execution of Will unreliable. [Paras 45 to 48
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss. 65 and 66 -- photocopy of two Wills -- admissibility in evidence -- both documents admitted by author in cross-examination -- admissible in evidence. (2015) 1 SCC 708 followed. [Para 48
(5) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- S. 4 -- registration of Trust -- legality of Trust registered on basis of Will -- execution and proof of Will found unreliable -- formation of Trust on basis of such Will against law -- trial Court has not erred in disbelieving formation of Trust. [Paras 53 to 55 & 65
(6) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- Ss. 8 and 4 -- formation of Trust on basis of Will -- challenge to Trust deed -- civil suit for declaration of formation of Trust as null and void -- objection that Trust deed not challenged and suit not maintainable -- pleadings available that said deed challenged and claimed to be null and void -- requirement of pleadings is only to make other party aware of what is being contested -- plaintiff not required to challenge Will -- burden of proving Will always lies upon propounder -- same not proved -- objection/argument not tenable. AIR 1966 SC 735 followed. [Paras 53 to 55
(7) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 6 R. 13 -- requirement of pleadings -- requirement is only to make other party aware of what is contested in case and what is to be adjudicated. AIR 1966 SC 735 followed. [Para 53
(8) Practice -- not exhibiting order -- is mistake of Court -- party cannot be punished. AIR 1965 SC 1744 and (2019) 2 SCC 186 followed. [Paras 57 to 59
(9) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- S. 8 -- necessary party -- civil suit for declaration of Trust as null and void -- Registrar of Public Trusts not necessary party. AIR 1965 SC 1744 referred to. [Para 69
(10) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 80 -- M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 -- S. 8 -- civil suit for declaration of Trust as null and void -- notice given to Registrar of Public Trusts -- it was duty of Court to send notice to State Government through Registrar -- such compliance done -- no party other than State can raise objection regarding notice under section 80 CPC. AIR 1960 SC 1399 referred to. [Para 70
(11) Civil P. C., 1908 -- S. 11, Explanation (V) -- applicability of principle of res judicata -- earlier finding of LPA that merits of validity of Trust deed and competency thereof to be decided in civil suit after considering all technical objection -- would clearly constitute res judicata in present appeal. [Para 72
(12) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- Ss. 4 and 8 -- formation of Trust on basis of Will -- civil suit for declaration of Trust as null and void -- objection that trial Court erred in holding Wills as forged because no such relief was sought -- such objection not acceptable -- large relief for declaration of title is sought -- large relief includes other types of relief, including relief of cancellation of order, Will to be declared forged and fabricated. AIR 1956 Bom. 243 relied on. [Para 73
(13) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- applicability -- does not apply to M. P. Public Trusts Act. [Para 66
(14) Public Trusts Act, 1882 -- S. 1 -- applicability -- does not apply to M. P. Public Trusts Act. [Para 65
(15) Public Trusts Act, 1951 (M. P.) -- S. 8 -- civil suit -- Section 1 of Public Trusts Act, 1882 does not apply to M. P. Public Trusts Act. [Para 65
(16) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 20 R. 12 and S. 96 -- determination of mesne profit -- property in possession of defendant under authority of Trust -- formation of Trust not proved -- trial Court granted mesne profit at Rs. 15,000/- per month from date of filing of suit -- same modified to Rs. 2,000/- per month from date of filing of suit and Rs. 15,000/- from date of amendment of plaint -- appeal partly allowed to that extent. AIR 1984 MP 1 referred to. [Paras 75 to 77
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (for brevity, CPC) assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.3.2018 passed by VI Additional District Judge, District Gwalior in civil Suit No. 14-A/2014, by which, the civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injuction as well as cancellation of order of Registrar Public Trust dated 10.11.99 filed by respondent No.-1/plaintiff Muni Kumar Razdan was decreed.
2. For the sake of convinience the respondent No.-1 will be addressed as the plaintiff and the appellants and respondents No.-2 and 3 will be addressed as the defendants hereinafter.
3. It is not disputed between the parties that plaintiff Muni Kumar and Chaitanya Kumar (since dead) were real brothers. Dr. Maharaj Narayan Razdan was the father and Khemrani Razdan was the mother of plaintiff Muni Kumar and his brother Chaitanya Kumar. Dr. Maharaj Narayan Razdan died on 28.10.99 and Chaitanya Kumar died on 4.7.99. Khemrani Razdan died before the death of her husband Maharaj Narayan.
4. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed this civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that the order dated 10.11.1999 be declared as null and void so also he be declared exclusive owner of property shown under attached map as "A" and it is to be declared not to be of property of public trust and also sought injunction against defendant and in the alternative relief prayed for possession so also mesne profit to the tune of rupees 2,000/- per month. As per plaint pleadings, Dr. Maharaj Narayan Razdan and his family were one of the reputed, renouned and educated family in the City of Gwalior (M.P.) and are having their owned movable and immovable property situated at Roshani Ghar Road, Lashkar, District Gwalior (M.P.) which was in existence from the time of Gwalior State, which is shown in the plaint map by green line marking the same as 'A' (herein after called as disputed property) and on rest of the portion of the property their tenant are residing. Dr. Maharaj Narayan Razdan, who was working as Military Doctor has also started his own clinic at Daulatganj, Lashkar, District Gwalior (M.P.), which was ran by him till his death and also resided in the disputed property along with his family till he died on 4.7.1994.
5. The plaintiff started his business in Gwalior and has expanded the same upto Mumbai and thereafter, the plaintiff has settled in Mumbai and has been living in Mumbai for last more than 25 years along with his two daughters. Hence, the plaintiff is residing at Mumbai and come occasionally at Gwalior as and when his brother or his parents called him. During his life time, Dr. Razdan managed the property in questions, and before Dr. Razdan his wife expired on 19.7.1993, thereafter on 4.7.1994 Dr. Razdan has died. The elder son of Dr. Razdan i.e. Chetanya Razdan was a highly educated person, but he used to spend the money lavishly and spend most of his life time in enjoyment and amusement. He was very short tempered and also in shortage of money all the time, hence, to to meet his demand of money, he used to demand money from the plaintiff as well as his parents. Chetanya Razdan had bitter relationship with his parents as he used to torture and harass his parents for demand of money, due to which, the parents of the plaintiff were very unhappy by the unusual and unexpected behaviour of Chetanya Razdan, therefore, they started neglecting him and loved the plaintiff, due to which, Chetanya Razdan developed enmity with the plaintiff. The plaintiff, thereafter, used to visit Gwalior on a call given by his parents only.
6. It has also been pleaded in the plaint that after the death of plaintiff's father, Chetanya Razdan became alone and due to bad and unwanted habits of living a lavish life and doing extravagent expenditure unnecessarily, Chetanya Razdan suffered Glucoma in his eyes, due to which, before the death of his parents, he
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff failed to prove his title over the suit property and the suit was not maintainable as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Pub....
Properties held in trust cannot be claimed as personal property of a trustee; relevant decrees regarding management are binding on all parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit was maintainable under the Indian Trusts Act, as the defendant failed to prove the absence of a jural relationship between the partie....
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
