Munna Lal Sharma And Others vs Babul Lal Sharma

The appellants filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 11.4.2019 passed by First Additional District Judge, Panna in M.J.C.No.33/2018, whereby the learned court below has allowed the application filed by respondent-Babulal and as an interim measure directed to constitute an interim Committee to look-after the activities and management of the Trust Board till final disposal of the case. The Committee was constituted of Additional Collector, Panna, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Panna and Tahsildar, Panna, who were nominated as members. The Court further directed that they shall take charge of the Trust and conduct all the proceedings and management of the Trust. It has also been directed that compliance report be filed upto 23.4.2019.

The appellants challenging the aforesaid directions on the ground that the Court without any emergency or apprehension of any danger to the disputed property without assigning any reason appointed receiver. The appellants further alleged that the Trust is running 7 temples of Pranami Sampradaay. All the religious activities are being conducted by the Trust. The Court did not take into consideration the judgment passed in the case of Shyamacharan Raghubar Prasad. After passing the order dated 05.10.2018 the trial Court had become functus officio, even then the Court started the proceedings illegally, without appreciating the provisions of section 27 of the Trust Act. The order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the principle laid down in the case of Bal Vyasi Vs. Mahila Ujjala, 1973 MPLJ 191. Hence, they prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 11.4.2019.

Perused the record. It is not in dispute that Shri 108 Prannathiji Mandir Trust Dham, Panna is duly registered under the provisions of Public Trust Act, 1955 on 30.9.1961 vide order passed in Revenue Case No.B-113(1)1 of 1959-60 by the competent authority-Registrar Public Trust/Collector, Panna.

The respondent filed an application before the Registrar. He stated in the aforesaid application that there is no rule or regulation regarding protection of Trust and the property, appointment and service conditions of employees, responsibilities and distributions of works of trustees and office bearers was also challenged by him which was registered as Civil Suit No.33/2018 in the Court of District Judge. Then the applicants have filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and prayed to reject the plaint on the ground that as per section 92 of C.P.C. the suit is not maintainable until it is not filed on behalf of Advocate General.

The respondent specifically denied the above contentions of the applicant before the trial Court and submits that, the applicant, with malafied intention, raised all the objection in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. In fact, he has filed an application under Section of 26 of the MP Public Trust Act in compliance of the direction of the Registrar. Therefore, bar under Section 92 of the CPC is not applicable in this case, nor it is essential for him to comply with the provisions of Section 92(1) of CPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Section 26 of the MP Public Trust Act prescribes that if the Registrar is satisfied that, the original object of public trust has failed; the trust property is not being properly managed or administrated; or the direction of Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust; then he may direct the working trustee to apply to the Court for direction and if the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required, or if there is no trustee of the public trust or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the Court.

Section 27 of the MP Public Trust Act reads as under :

"27. Court's power to hear application. - (1) On receipt of such application the Court shall make or cause to be made such inquiry into the case as it deems fit and pass such orders thereon as it may consider appropriate.

(2) While exercising the power under sub-section (1) the Court shall, among other powers, have power to make an order for;

(a) removing any trustee;

(b) appointing a new trustee;

(c) declaring what portion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;

(d) providing a scheme of management of the trust property;

(e) directing how the funds of a public trust whose original object has failed, shall be spent, having due regard to the original intention of the author of the trust or the object for which the trust was created;

(f) issuing any directions as the nature of the case may require.

It is not in dispute that the applicant was a trustee of the trust working for Prarnathji Temple Trust at Panna. He had filed an application under Section 27 of the MP Public Trust Act and not a suit under Section 92 of the CPC. As explained by the Court below in the impugned order due to clerical error, his application has been registered as civil suit. Hence, the Court below further directed the reader to cure the defect and after dismissing the registration of application as civil suit, it will be registered as MJC.

From the contention in the application under Section 26/27 of the MP Public Trust Act, all the above reasons are reflected in right perspective.

In case of Mrinalim Padhi vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (Civil) No. 649/2018, by an interim order dated 05.10.2018, the Supreme Court passed an order and directed to prepare the recommendation to save the main object of the trust with regard to Shri Jagannath Temple situated at Puri Orissa. On the basis of enquiry conducted by the Sessions Judge, the Supreme Court found various deficiencies in the management of the trusties and Mahant who exploits the visitor and also involved in corruption. They do not want the administration to control their illegal activity.

Similarly, in the application under Section 26/27 of the MP Public Trust Act, the respondent has made the following prayer :

"(i) Direct the lower Court i.e. First Additional District Judge Panna to frame by-laws and rules for betterment, administration and management of respondent No.1/trust.

(ii) Direct the lower Court i.e. First Additional District Judge, Panna to make comprehensive rules for election of the trustee for constitution of broad, consistence with the objects and provisions as mentioned in the registration order of respondent No.1/trust.

(iii) To grant any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case looking to the report no. 106/18 dated 08.10.2018."

The irregularities committed by the appellants/trustee due to misuse of their official position and mis-conduct to regulate their working. New trustees shall be appointed through election. All the order passed by them since August, 2017 till now were declared illegal, etc.

Therefore, the objection raised by the applicant that the provisions under Section 92 of CPC has not been complied by the respondent is not applicable in this case. Therefore, application filed by the applicant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC rightly dismissed by the court below. Accordingly, this first appeal is hereby dismissed.