SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT PRINCIPAL SEAT JODHPUR
JAY KUMAR KOTHARI AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
KAILASH CHAND CHOUDHARY AND ORS – Respondent
CW 4874/2015



The scope of a suit under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is limited to the correction of entries made under Section 21 of the Act, which relate to entries in the register.

Headnote:

PUBLIC TRUST - ENTRIES IN REGISTER - CORRECTION - SUIT FOR - SCOPE - SECTION 22 OF THE RAJASTHAN PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1959 - The scope of a suit under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is limited to the correction of entries made under Section 21 of the Act, which relate to entries in the register. The court cannot expand the scope of the suit beyond the legislative intention.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged certain entries in the register of a public trust under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The trial court allowed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondents, adding a fresh prayer for conducting fresh elections of the Trust.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the scope of a suit under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 is limited to the correction of entries made under Section 21 of the Act, which relate to entries in the register. The court cannot expand the scope of the suit beyond the legislative intention.

Issues: Whether the scope of a suit under Section 22 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 can be expanded beyond the correction of entries in the register.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Sections 21, 22, and 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which provide for the correction of entries in the register and the consequences of such correction. The court held that the trial court erred in allowing the amendment to the prayer in the suit, as it would expand the scope of the suit beyond the legislative intention.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned order dated 28.01.2015, and quashed the amendment sought in the prayer.

(1 of 4)

[CW-4874/2015]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4874/2015

Jay Kumar Kothari And Anr

----Petitioner

Versus

Kailash Chand Choudhary And Ors

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4872/2015

Jay Kumar Kothari And Anr

----Petitioner

Versus

Kailash Chand Choudhary And Ors

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat, on VC

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Vinay Jain, on VC

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

06/01/2022

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, the lawyers have been advised

to refrain from coming to the Courts.

The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions claiming for

the following prayers:-

SBCPW No.4874/2015 :

“It is, therefore, host humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ

petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 28.01.2015 may

kindly be quashed and set aside. The application filed under Order

6 Rule 17 CPC may kindly be dismissed with costs.”

(2 of 4)

[CW-4874/2015]

The bone of contention is management of a public trust, in

which certain entries have been challenged under Section 22 of

the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. The Trust is registered with

Devsthan Department, Udaipur.

The petition is against order passed by the trial court

allowing application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the respondents

while adding fresh prayer of conducting fresh elections of the

Trust.

Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat has drawn

attention of this Court to Section 21, 22 & 23 of the Rajasthan

Public Trust Act, 1959, which reads as follows:-

Sec. 21 - Entries in the Register:

1. The Assistant Commissioner shall cause entries to be made in the

register in accordance with the finding recorded by him under section

19 or, if an appeal has been filed under Sec. 20 in accordance with the

decision of the Commissioner on such appeal, and shall cause to be

published on the notice board of his office and at a conspicuous place

in the city, town or village where the principal office or the principal

place of business of the public trust is situate, the entries made in the

register.

2. The entries so made shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act

and subject to any change recorded under any provisions of the Act or a

rule made there under, be final and conclusive.

Sec. 22 - Civil suit against entries made under section 21:

1. Any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or in

any property found to be trust property aggrieved by any entry made

under section 21 may, within six months from the date of the

publication thereof on the notice board of the office of

the Assistant Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 21,

institute a suit in a civil court to have such entry cancelled or modified.

2. In every such suit the civil court shall give notice to the State

Government through the assistant Commissioner and the State

Government, if it so desires shall be made a party to the suit.

(3 of 4)

[CW-4874/2015]

3. On the final decision of the suit, the Assistant Commissioner shall, if

necessary, correct the entries made in the register in accordance with

such decision.

Sec. 23 - Changes:

1. Where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in the

register, the working trustee shall, within ninety days from the date of

the occurrence of such change, or, where any change is desired in such

entries in the interest of the administration of such public trust, the

working trustee may, report in the prescribed form and manner such

change or proposed change to the Assistant Commissioner.

2. For the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries in the

register or ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the

particulars recorded in the register, the Assistant Commissioner may

hold an inquiry.

3. If, after holding such inquiry as he may consider necessa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top