Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1910
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. S. Sonak, CJ, Rajesh Shankar, J
Dilip David Hansda – Appellant
Versus
Oddvar Holmedal – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 79 of 1992|L.P.A. No. 80 of 1992
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Trusts and Representative Suits
Act Referred
Indian Trusts Act, 1882: S.47, S.48
Indian Stamp Act, 1899: Art.62(e)
Companies Act, 1956
Limitation Act, 1963: S.3, Art.58, Art.113
Constitution of India: Art.25
Indian Trusts Act: S.47, S.48
Headnote
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 3 - Article 58 - Duty of court to dismiss time-barred suits - Where a suit is on its face barred by limitation from the pleadings, the court is bound to dismiss it despite lack of defence in written statement. (Paras 68-71, 82-88)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1, Rule 9 - Non-joinder of necessary party - Suit seeking declaration against a transfer deed where the transferee is not impleaded - Held, a legal entity receiving property under a transfer instrument is a necessary party; failure to implead it is fatal to a claim seeking to invalidate such transfer. (Paras 95-99)
(D) Law of Trusts - Trust as a juristic person - Trust does not have a separate legal existence and is incapable of suing or being sued in its own name. (Paras 144-148) (E) Appeals - Scope of interference - Appellate court should not interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or unsupported by law. (Paras 123, 139)
Facts of the case:
The litigation originated from disputes over the management and properties of a religious and charitable mission established in the 19th century. Subsequent to the formation of a successor association, a transfer instrument was executed in 1968 to vest properties in the new entity. Beneficiaries filed a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the transfer as fraudulent and seeking a scheme for management and removal of trustees. A parallel suit was filed by the association for declaration of title and injunctions against beneficiaries. The trial court decreed the beneficiaries' suit and set aside the transfer, while simultaneously decreeing the association's suit. The first appellate court reversed the decision in favor of the beneficiaries, leading to these appeals.
Findings of Court:
The Appellate Court found that the suit under Section 92 was not sustainable to set aside a transfer after the primary reliefs for scheme formation and removal of trustees were rejected. Furthermore, the court held that the suit was barred by limitation and suffered from the non-joinder of the transferee entity.
Issues: (1) The maintainability of a suit under Section 92 of the CPC when primary claims of breach of trust are not proven; (2) The applicability of the bar of limitation on the basis of pleadings; (3) Whether the non-joinder of the corporate transferee is fatal; (4) The legal status of a trust as a party to litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that a suit under Section 92 requires a solid foundation of proven breach of trust; once this fails, the suit cannot be treated as a private dispute or used merely to set aside a specific conveyance. Additionally, a trust is not a legal person and cannot sue; suit must be brought by trustees in their capacity.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajeeva Sharma, Om Prakash, Ritesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Anil Kumar, Rahul Kumar, Chandana Kumari
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical formation and structural evolution of the smnc trust and nelc association. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. initiation of title suits nos. 5 and 11 of 1971 concerning trust management and property disputes. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. maintainability of section 92 cpc suit requires establishing breach of trust for maintainable relief. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 4. duty of court to dismiss time-barred suits regardless of pleading defense. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91) |
| 5. mandatory joinder of corporate transferee in property dispute litigation. (Para 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100) |
| 6. ministerial acts by trustees/attorneys do not delegate core trust functions under trusts act. (Para 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140) |
| 7. a trust is not a legal entity capable of suing. (Para 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149) |
Per M. S. Sonak, C.J.
1. Heard Mr Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, who appears with Mr Om Prakash and Mr Ritesh Kumar for the appellants in both appeals, and Mr Anil Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, who appears with Mr Rahul Kumar and Ms Chandana Kumari on behalf of the respondents in both appeals. Mr Sudhir Kumar Sinha appeared and was heard on questions of law after I.A. No. 11821 of 2024 in L.P.A. No. 80 of 1992 was dismissed.
2. L.P.A. No. 79 of 1992 challenges the learned Single Judge’s common judgment, decree and order dated 30.06.1992 in First Appeal No. 564 of 1985 by which the learned Single Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.06.1985 passed by this District Judge, Dumka (Trial Court) in Title Suit No. 05 of 1971 instituted by the appellants herein. Trial Court had decreed Title Suit No. 05 of 1971 in favour of the appellants herein (original plaintiffs).
3. L.P.A. No. 80 of 1992 challenges the learned Single Judge’s common judgment, decree and order dated 30.06.1992 in First Appeal No. 197 of 1986 affirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Dumka (Trial Court) in Title Suit No. 11 of 1971 instituted by respondents herein who were plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 11 of 1971. The Trial Court had decreed Title Suit No. 11 of 1971 in favour of the respondents herein, who were the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 11 of 1971.
4. The records show that First Appeal Nos. 56 of 1985 and 197 of 1996 were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment, decree and order dated 30.06.1992. Therefore, although two separate LPAs, i.e. L.P.A. No. 79 of 1992 and L.P.A. No. 80 of 1992 have been filed, the learned counsel for the parties agree that both these appeals could be disposed of by a common judgment and order.
GENESIS OF THE DISPUTE
5. The dispute in the two suits, i.e., Title Suit No. 05 of 1971 and Title Suit No. 11 of 1971, from which these appeals arise, relates to the year 1880, when Rev. Hans Peter Doerresen and Rev. Laurentius Olaves Skrefsrud, engaged in Evangelical Protestant Mission Work amongst the Native Santals, founded a missionary society, earlier called ‘Indian Home Mission to the Santals’, now known as ‘Santal Mission of Northern Churches’ (SMNC), ‘for the education and civilisation of the local inhabitants’. They acquired movable and immovable properties for the purposes of the said mission and created a Trust by executing a Trust Deed dated 21st of April 1880 to secure the properties they had acquired and might acquire in the future.
6. The Trustees referred to in the Trust Deed dated 21st of April 1880 included not only Rev. Hans Peter Doerresen and Rev. Laurentius Olaves Skrefsrud, but also Mr Thomas Taylor Allen and Mr Robert Allen, Ex-trustees. They conve
