Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1465
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
Smt. Vijaya – Appellant
Versus
Khasgi (Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities) Trust Manik Bagh Indore – Respondent
CR 454/2021
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nipun Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Abhinav Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
A trust must be registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, and a single trustee cannot delegate authority without proper authorization from all trustees.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 - Sections 32, 36(1)(a), and 47 - Civil Revision Petition against dismissal of application for rejection of plaint - The plaintiff trust, not registered under the Act, filed a suit for injunction and possession, claiming encroachment by defendants - The court found the suit barred by law due to lack of registration and improper delegation of authority by trustees. (Paras 1-30)
(B) Delegation of Powers - A trustee cannot delegate duties unless permitted by the trust instrument or under specific conditions - The court emphasized that all co-trustees must join in legal actions unless properly authorized. (Paras 25-27)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff trust filed a suit against defendants for encroachment and sought possession of property, claiming financial loss. The defendants challenged the suit's maintainability, citing lack of registration and improper delegation of authority.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's dismissal of the application for rejection of the plaint was erroneous; the suit was barred by law due to the plaintiff trust's unregistered status and improper delegation of authority.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suit was maintainable given the plaintiff trust's registration status and the validity of the delegation of authority by the trustees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff trust must be registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, and that the delegation of authority by a single trustee without proper authorization from all trustees is invalid.
Result: The Civil Revision Petition is allowed; the plaint is ordered to be rejected.
ORDER
The present Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by petitioners / defendants No.1 and 2 being aggrieved by order dated 24.11.2021 in Civil Suit No.940-A/2019 passed by learned 7th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indore, whereby their application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for rejection of the plaint has been rejected / dismissed.
02. The aforesaid impugned order dated 24.11.2021 has been challenged on the following factual backdrop that the learned Court below has erred in exercising its jurisdiction, which rendered plaint liable to be rejected as per specific bar contained in Sections 32, 36(1)(a) and 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 .
03. Originally, respondent No.1 – herein / plaintiff (Khasgi Devi Ahilya Bai Holkar Charities Trust) Thru. Rajendra Joshi instituted a suit before learned 7th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indore bearing Civil Suit No.940- A/2019 seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing any disturbance or interference in the right, title and possession of the plaintiff and further relief of delivery of vacant possession of the subject property from defendants, directed the defendants to pay Rs.10,000/- per month, 35 months from prior to the filing of the suit till the date of vacant possession.
04. The plaintiff filed a present suit that subject property is H.No.1-1/2, Vitthal Mandir situated in Lohar Patti, Maulana Azad Marg, Malharganj, Indore (Old No.Nagar Palika, H.No. / Old Street No.2 and H.No.1) presently the Temple is bearing H.No.2/2, which is owned and possessed by the plaintiff Trust, the said plaintiff Trust constructed two storey house and rooms nearby Temple. Further stated that the defendants have no right over the aforesaid property, the defendants are causing financial loss to the plaintiff trust by occupying the property of the plaintiff trust as encroacher, the said property wholly owned and possessed by trust, the Government of M.P. has no right over the said property, the defendants are the encroachers and they should be evicted from the said property and handed over the vacant possession. Further stated that defendants are merely encroachers and creating interference with the plaintiff’s right and possession of the property of the plaintiff and causing loss of Rs.10,000/- per month to the plaintiff trust, therefore, plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction and claiming an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month.
05. After coming to know about the filing of the suit, the defendants / respondents LRs. of Dinkar Rao and Ors. filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking relief to reject the plaint filed by the plaintiff invoking the above provision.
06. The averments in the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC that the present suit filed by Rajendra Joshi on behalf of the plaintiff Trust on the basis of purported Power of Attorney dated 23.07.2019 said to have been executed by one of the trustee Shri Satishchandra Malhotra. Further averred that as per the judgment of Hon’ble High Court, it has categorically said that the trustee of the trust cannot delegate his power to stranger by executing Power of Attorney. Para 104 reads as follow:-
“Section 47 of Indian Trusts Act, 1882 :- Trustee cannot delegate -
A trustee cannot delegate his office or any of his duties either to a co-trustee or to a stranger, unless
(a) the instrument of trust so provides, or
(b) the delegation is in the regular course of business, or
(c) the delegation is necessary, or
(d) the beneficiary, being competent to contract, consents to the delegation.
Explanation.-- The appointment of an attorney or proxy to do an act merely ministerial and involving no independent discretion is not a delegation within the meaning of this section. Illustrations
(a) A bequeaths certain property to B and C on certain trusts to be executed by them or the survivor
