Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MRIDULA BHATKAR, J
Smt.Ramadevi Haribux Garodia & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
International Society For Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) – Respondent
Civil Revision Application NO. 110 OF 2005
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar, Mr. Pavan S. Patil, Mr.Shivam Nagalia
For the Respondents: Mr.Vaibhav Sugdare, Mr. Sumit Raghani
The court upheld the rights of a charitable trust to seek restoration of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing the trust's ability to act through its trustees without needing all trustees present.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act - Section 6 - Forcible dispossession - Suit filed by the charitable trust for restoration of possession of suit premises - Claims of forcible dispossession upheld by trial court - Defendant’s claims of non-joinder and inadequacy of evidence rejected, affirming trust’s rights over property through authorizing trustees - Court held that no appeal lies in this summary jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 3, 9, 15, 27)
(B) Party Structure - Necessity of all trustees joining in suit - Rulings on maintainability without all trustees present - Court emphasized jurisdiction over fæct-Co judgement; mis-joinder or non-joinder not grounds for dismissal if trustee precedent exists - Courts' focus on evidence presented in fact of possession and wrongful dispossession was decisive. (Paras 4, 14, 26)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a charitable trust, alleged forcible dispossession from premises owned by the defendants, leading to suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. This case established legal frameworks for authority and actions of trusts.
Findings of Court:
The court maintained the trial court’s ruling asserting the trust’s rights, emphasizing that trust functions through its members, and evidence supported claims of dispossession.
Issues: Was there wrongful dispossession, and did the plaintiffs have standing, specifically regarding the necessity of trustee representation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the trust’s functional capacity permitted representation by one trustee, thus upholding its rights in the face of unjust dispossession.
Result: Civil Revision Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. civil revision application against trial court's order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants argue against the suit's maintainability based on joinder of parties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respective witness testimonies confirm forcible dispossession. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. acknowledged trust's operational rights without universal trustee presence. (Para 14 , 25) |
| 5. the court maintains the trial court's decision. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the order dated 05.02.2005 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Thane in Regular Civil Suit No.712 of 1996.
2. The applicants are the original defendants against whom the respondent/plaintiff had filed a Regular Civil Suit No.712 of 1996 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act . The plaintiff was forcibly ousted from the suit premises i.e. Flat Nos. 102, 103 and 104 admeasuring 1800 sq.ft. in A Wing of Walchand Shopping Centre, Near Shivaji Chowk, Bhayander (W), Thane.
3. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the plaintiff is a Charitable Trust namely International Society For Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) and the plaintiff-Trust was put in possession of the suit premises on the basis of Tenancy Agreement dated 25.07.1986, which was executed between the plaintiff-Trust and one Ajay Garodia Charitable Trust. The plaintiff-Trust was carrying on religious charitable activities as of worshiping Lord Radha and Krishna in Flat Nos. 102 and 103 in B Wing and the disputes arose between the plaintiff and the defendants on account of nuisance and for using water and premises. They lodged criminal cases against each other before the Judicial Magistrate, Thane. The applicants i.e. defendants have asked the plaintiff to vacate the premises and they started harassing the members as well as the priest of the plaintiff-Trust. On 09.06.1996, defendant no.2 had demolished the dividing wall between the suit premises and their residential premises. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants on 09.06.1996 with the Bhayandar Police Station. On 26.06.1996, defendant no.2 arrived at the premises alongwith 20-25 gundas and forcibly thrown out the devotees, priest and the employees of the plaintiff- Trust. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants with the Bhayandar Police Station, however, no offence was registered against them as police were hand-in-glove with the defendants. The plaintiff-trust thereafter filed the Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act on 06.08.1996. The defendants opposed the Suit and filed their Written Statement denying all averments and allegations made in the plaint. In the Written Statement, the defendants challenged the maintainability of the Suit on the ground that the plaintiff-trust has not taken permission of the Charity Commissioner. The defendants have denied that the plaintiff was even in possession of the suit premises and also denied the allegations made by the plaintiff-Trust regarding forcible dispossession and stealing the idols of deity of Radha and Girdhari from the premises. It is contended that the plaintiff was allowed to perform pooja in the suit temple owned by the defendants and, therefore, the question of dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendants did not arise. After considering the pleadings in the plaint and contentions in the written statement, the trial Court decreed the Suit. Hence, this Civil Revision Application.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that frame of the Suit is improper and defective. The Suit suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of the proper parties. The respondent/plaintiff is a trust and the Suit should have been filed by all the trustees. The Suit is filed by a Trust and permission under Section 50 of the Bombay Trust Act is required, however, it is not taken, hence it is not maintainable. He has further submitted that impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is
