Delhi District Court
Pawan Chopra vs Manav Seva Dharmarth Charitable Trust on 21 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Mahima Rai Singh
CS SCJ No. 8987/2016
CNR Number: DLWT-03-000552-2013
1. Pawan Chopra
S/o Late Sh. Rajpal Chopra
2. Smt. Kanchan Chopra
W/o Mr. Pawan Chopra
Both Residents of :
C-19, 5th Lane, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi
.......Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Manav Seva Dharmarth Charitable Trust
Having its head office at
GN-11, Shivaji Enclave, Shivaji College Road,
New Delhi-110027
THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
2. Mr. Arun Aggrawal
S/o Sh. R.S.Aggarwal,
6-B/2, Northern Extn.,
Pusa Road, New Delhi-110060
3. Mr. G.R.Popli,
S/o Late Sh. R.B.M. Popoli
4. Smt. Nidhi Popli
W/o Late Sh. Sandeep Popli
5. Smt. Kanta Popli
W/o Sh. G.R.Popli
CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 1 of 26
6. Sh. Vishesh Popli
S/o Late Sah. Sandeep Popli
Defendant no. 3 to 6 are resident of :
GN-11, Shivaji Enclave,
Shivaji college Road, New Delhi -110027
7. Smt. Sangeeta Bhatia
S/o Sh. G.R.Popli
8. Sh. Sanjay Bhatia
S/o Late Sh. P.N.Bhatia
Defendant no. 7 & 8 are resident of :
A-10, Pride Plza (behind goldy cinema)
Vedant Nagar, Aurangabad (Maharashtra)
9. Smt. Monica Bhatia
D/o Mr. G.R.Popli
10. Mr. Naveen Bhatia
S/o Late Mr. P.D.Bhatia
Defendant no. 9 & 10 are resident of :
Flat no. 711-D, Parkside-3, Rahja Estate,
Next t Borivilli National Park,
Borivilli (E), Mumbai
......Defendants
Date of Institution : 17.07.2013
Date on which judgment was reserved : : 04.01.2023
Date of pronouncing judgment : 21.01.2023
SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PERMANENT & MANDATORY
INJUNCTION AND RENDITION OF ACCOUNT
CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 2 of 26
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a decree of rendition of accounts and assets of assets of the defendant no. 1 Trust from the year 2004 till date, decree of declaration declaring the appointment of purported new trustees being defendant no. 6 to 10 vide the extract of the minutes of meeting dt. 01.03.2013 as null and void, decree of mandatory injunction to reconstitute the Board of Trustees and Board of Management of the "Manav Seva Dharmarth Charitable Trust", also to manage the affairs of the defendant no. 1 "Manav Seva Dharmarth Charitable Trust" strictly as per the Trust Deed dated 02.07.2004 and carry out the activities only in consonance with the stated objectives of the said Trust dated 02.07.2004, also to remove the plaque from the land and only install plaques/display board of the trust without reference to any individual trustee or any other person and restraining the defendant no. 2 to 10, their agents, associates, servants, employees and agents etc. from mismanaging the affairs and misusing the funds of the defendant no. 1 trust.
Brief facts of the case as per the plaintiff are as under:-
2. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are persons with sincere religious leanings and alongwith fulfilling their professional and personal commitments, the also have devoted their entire life for religious and social purposes. The plaintiffs are the founder Trustees of defendant no. 1 Trust and having sufficient interest in the Trust and its affairs are thus competent to file the present suit.
3. It is further submitted that the defendant no. 1 is a religious and charitable Trust formed by virtue of declaration of trust dt.
CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 3 of 26 02.07.2004. The defendant no. 2 is the settlor of the trust as also one of the trustees. It is further submitted that apart from the plaintiffs, the defendant no. 2, defendant no. 3 to 5 are the other Trustees of the Trust and have accordingly been made a party to the present proceedings in the said capacity. It is further submitted that the defendant no. 6 to 10 have purportedly been appointed as Trustees vide extracts of Minutes of Meeting dt. 01.03.2013 (which appointment is totally malafide, illegal and unlawful as would be brought forth in the present suit) and hence have been made party to the present suit in the said capacity.
4. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have been constrained and forced into preferring the present suit against the defendants herein , owing to their pious, righteous and religious beliefs and in the interests of the society at large, in as much as the defendants who are legally, socially and morally bound to follow the path of religion and social service are going against the basic tenets of religious and social beliefs and despite being repeatedly called upon to move on the right path have refused to do so, thus severely affecting and prejudicing the plaintiffs as also the other members of the public.
5. It is further submitted that the defendant no. 1 Trust, was incorporated with seven Trustees, which comprised of the plaintiffs, defendant no. 3 to 5, Late Mr. Sandeep Popli and Mr. Jagdish Popli. It is further submitted that the clause 3 of Trust deed dt. 02.07.2004, provided for its main aims and objectives, which were broadly to establish, run and maintain school, colleges, libraries, hostels, boarding houses, reading rooms, orphan and other similar institutions and to provide scholarship/stipends to students and also to provide awards, medals to CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 4 of 26 students.
6. It is further submitted that as per clause 3 (c), Trust money can be used for providing donation and monetary benefits to individual or organization for the promotion and advancement of education literature, art, science or culture and other similar social work relating to education to society. Besides the above aims and objectives, Trust further had the objectives of promotion of physical, mental, educational development and upliftment of all sections of society and for promoting yoga centers for general public. Further, as per clause 3(h) of Trust Deed, an activity of helping persons who were affected by natural calamities by way of monetary help or helping them in kind, could have been carried under the Trust. It is further submitted that as per clause 3(i) dispensaries, hospitals, dawakhanas, maternity home could have been established, run or maintained for the benefit of sick and needy persons or the old age home, dharamshalas/colony could have been established/run/or assisted with monetary benefits under the trust. The trust deed, further provides that the trust money can be utilized for providing water for drinking or bathing purposes for human being or animal and for the said purpose, pyaoos, water heads, water booths, taps, hand pumps, tubewells, ponds, pools, could have been established and maintained.
7. It is further submitted that a piece of land ad measuring 2600 Sq. yards had been purchased in September 1997 by the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant no. 3. It is further submitted that though the ownership of land continues to vest with the respective owners, but at the same time, the same be used for some charitable purposes as well and the defendant no. 3 also expressed the said desire at that time. It is further submitted CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 5 of 26 that since both the plaintiffs no. 1 and the defendant no. 3 were members of defendant no. 1 Trust it was decided to use the said land for the charitable purposes under the aegis of the Trust itself for charitable purposes. It was decided that some temporary constructions would be done at the land and charitable work be carried out from there. The details of the property is as Khasra no. 240, 0-10 acres situated village Kishanpur, Pargana centradoon, Distt. Dehradun. It is also relevant ot mention here that all the papers of the proper are in possession of defendant no. 3 and the plaintiff's has only the documents relating to the previous owner which is enclosed herewith.
8. It is further submitted that plaintiff no. 1 was earlier carrying on business which kept him extremely tied up and the plaintiff no. 2 is a housewife and thus the plaintiffs were not in a position to look into the affairs of the defendant no. 1 Trust. Defendant no. 3 was primilarily looking after the said affairs and since he was known to the plaintiffs and was also co-owner of the land the plaintiffs had in good faith trusted that he was conducting the affairs as decided with the plaintiffs and as per the objectives of the Trust. Plaintiff no. 1 left it for his son to manage and decided to devote his time for social and other causes including defendant no. 1 trust.
9. It is further submitted that plaintiffs are not given notice of any meeting and all the decisions are taken unilaterally behind their backs. Plaintiffs being founding members of Trust had decided to take care the management of defendant no. 1 Trust, however defendant no. 3 said that he was looking after the affairs of trust and plaintiffs need not bother but defendant no. 3 gave evasive and contradictory replies. On CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 6 of 26 02.05.2013, the plaintiff no. 1 visited the land at Dehradun about the status of land and also the affairs of the Trust. The plaintiff no. 1 received the shock of his life and saw that only temporary structures were to be erected, however permanent construction had been carried out at the land. The plaintiff found that a permanet structure in the form of Mandir was constructed on the land which was totally in violation of the aims and objectives of Trust as penned at the time of formation of the Trust. There were other permanent structures in the form of old age home/dharmashal, however, it came as a shock that the rooms of the same were being let out for commercial purposes and slips issued in the name of donation though records were being maintained in a kucha register and thus the amount so collected is being misappropriated for personal use. There were young people alongwith their families were residing and their cars were also parked there. A plaque was also found installed at the site that the institute was constructed by the defendant no. 3 & 5 and their families and only at the bottom of the said plaque the name of the Trust has been stated
10. It is further submitted that the defendant no. 3 using the land as their own personal assets and properties and plaintiff no. 1 raised the said issue and defendant no. 3 at the first instance sought to put the same on the best interests of the Trust. The defendant no. 3 convinced the plaintiff and undertook to rectify the same, however he did not do anything to rectify the situation. The plaintiff have come across the extract of the minutes of meeting dt. 01.03.2013, whereby it was purportedly resolved that due to death of trustees namely Sh. Sandeep Popli and Sh. Jagdish Popli, new trustees i.e. defendant no. 7 to 10 were made trustees of defendant no. 1, which was a complete shock to the CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 7 of 26 plaintiffs. It is further submitted that on 01.03.2013 plaintiffs had gone to abroad and in their absence defendant no. 6 to 10 as Trustees of defendant no. 1 Trust. It is further submitted that defendant no. 3 alongwith other defendants, with the malafide intents of further wresting the control of the Trust with them and for the purposes of having complete domination and control over the affairs and assets of the defendant no. 1 Trust, have convened the meeting dt. 01.03.2013, in the absence of the plaintiffs. The said induction has been done so as to negate any objections of the plaintiffs as to the affairs of the Trust. It is further submitted that as per clause 13 of the Trust the plaintiffs are also the surviving and continuing Trustees and hence the appointment of new trustees could only have been with their consent and approval. However, the defendants acting in complete negation of the said clause and that of the plaintiffs, have without the approval or consent of the plaintiffs appointed defendant nos. 6 to 10 as Trustees, which appointment is thus totally illegal and unlawful. The defendant no. 3 to 10 are thus hand in glove with each other and are acting against the interests of the defendant no. 1 Trust and thus the entire control of the Trust got vested in the defendant no. 3 and his close blood and other relations and they are misusing and misutilizing the funds of the defendant no. 1 Trust and also taking arbitrary and unilateral decisions without even consulting the other members or Trustees or seeking their views or opinions.
11. It is further submitted that defendant no. 1 is a public and charitable Trust and is intended for the benefit of the public at large. However, the action of the defendants in using the said Trust as their personal property is completely malafide, unlawful, illegal, arbitrary and CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 8 of 26 greatly prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiffs as also the general public at large. It is further submitted that as per clause (g) of the Trust Deed the Trustee are required to keep proper accounts of the Trust Fund with unanimous consent of all the trustees. However, the accounts of the Trust are neither being kept properly nor are they being maintained with the consent of the plaintiffs. That since collections are being made from the temple as also the old age home/dharamshala being used commercially, hence the Trust has a huge corpus of funds available with it, which are public funds lying and being utilized at the complete discretion and control of the defendant no. 3 to 10 and hence subject to serious misuse and abuse. It is further submitted that the defendants are using the property under Trust for earning profits and are charging exorbitant amounts from the people using the old age home/dharamshala built by the Trust, however, they deliberately do not keep proper records of the huge amount so collected and are using the said amounts as per their whims and fancies and against the stated objectives of the Trust. The plaintiffs have no knowledge of the statement of accounts of the trust, since the inception of the trust till date. It is further submitted that defendants despite the said collection have been seeking contribution towards the corpus of the Trust and the plaintiffs have been contributing generously towards the same. It is further submitted that the illegal and unlawful acts of the defendants carried out in the name of the Trust but which are beyond the stated objectives of the Trust are liable to be declared null and void and so are the appointment of new trustees. It is further stated that the defendants are liable to be directed to restrained from carrying on any activities which are not in consonance with the stated objectives of the CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 9 of 26 Trust and are also liable to be directed to render and truthful account of money and assets of the defendant no. 1 trust.
12. It is further submitted that the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants when the Trust deed was executed, when the plaintiffs and others were nominated as found Trustees, when the affairs of the said Trust were conducted from time to time, when mandir was constructed under the aegis of the Mandir Trust despite the objects of the Trust not providing for the same, when defendant no. 6 to 10 were conducted as trustees in the absence of and without the consent of the plaintiffs It was further arose when the defendant no. 3 to 10 made various omissions and commissions which were contrary to the basics terms and objectives of trust and also mismanaged and misutlised the affairs and funds of the defendant no. 1 , further arose on various dates when the defendant no. 3 to 10 were called upon to comply with their obligations but they failed to do so and instead threatened to carry on the functioning as per their whims and fancies and is continuing and still subsisting since the defendant no. 3 to 10 are continuing with their illegal and unlawful activities, severely affecting and prejudicing the plaintiffs and the general public at large. It is further stated that the present suit is being filed as per the provisions of Section 92 of the code of Civil procedure, 1908. Written statement by defendants
13. In the written statement, the defendants have denied all the contentions of the plaintiff on merits and submitted that the present suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs do not have any interest in the Trust and its affairs and its objectives. The plaintiffs having contributed a sum CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 10 of 26 of Rs. 37,000/- for the purchase of land and another sum of Rs. 21,000/- subsequently have made no further contributions and as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have sufficient interest in the Trust.
14. It is further submitted that the defendant no. 3 and the plaintiff no. 1 have known each other for the last two decades. The defendant no. 3 being desirous of building a house in Dehradun for living at old age had been visiting Dehradun in search of a suitable piece of land. During that period, the plaintiff no. 1 also expressed a desire for constructing a house in Dehradun. When the plot in the village Danion Ka danda, on which the old age home is constructed was offered to Defendant no. 3 and the defendant no. 3 accompanied by plaintiff no. 1 visited the plot and negotiated the deal. The Defendant no. 3 arranged with the owner and the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant no. 3 purchased the land in question. The defendant no. 3 paid the labour charges to the owner every year for maintaining the plot for getting the boundary wall constructed and also for fencing the plot wherever necessary till the time the construction started. The defendant no. 3 expressed to plaintiff no. 1 that he was desirous of building up a temple and a senior citizen home for serving the elderly people especially those who are sufferers at the hands of their children and are under privilege. The plaintiff no. 1 having agreed to this, a Trust in the name and style of Defendant no. 1 was formed. In order to build up the Senior Citizen Home, it was considered that since the Home will be situated away from the city in a village, if a temple is build up, the elderly people will have the privilege of offering prayer, attending to Aarti etc. in the morning and evening. This will enable them to pass a part of their full day's time, if desired by them. The CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 11 of 26 temple was first constructed and later the Senior Citizen's Home. Within the temple premises a hall at the ground floor of the temple was erected for arranging Bhandaras conducting ceremonies by the villagers etc. A kitchen was also built for preparing and serving food to the inmates. At the ground floor of the temple a free homoepathic dispensary is functioning, under the charge of Rev. Swami Kapilendra Aacharya ji, who is a qualified doctor in Homeopathy and has been serving the sick and needy for the past three to four decades. He was formerly running the hospital at Swami Ram Tirath Mission and was vice-President of Mission, at Danion Ka Danda. He is running the dispensary providing free services. Besides, since plaintiff no. 1 and the defendants do not reside at Dehradun at the request of the defendants Rev. Swami Kapilendra Achrya ji has been maintaining the affairs of the trust right from allotting accommodation provided at the ground floor of the temple and the food is served to all inhabitants also at the Senior Citizens Home. The trust does not charge anyone for the medicines and all the costs of the medicines which are purchased are borne by the Trust. If the income is more than the expenses and some money is saved with Rev. Rev. Swami Kapilendra Acharya ji, the same is spent on development of the Trust property, repairs and wear and tear and providing additional facilities required in the Senior Citizens Home. Al these sundry expenses at the temple and Senior Citizens Home are paid from the recovery of amount received from the inhabitants etc. for stay, consumption of electricity/water and food. Till such time, there were no occupants in the Senior Citizens Home, the defendant no. 3 was personal bearing the expenses. From the aforesaid , it is abundantly clear that there is no CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 12 of 26 misappropriation and mismanagement and there is complete transparency in the functioning of the Trust. The present suit is as such liable to be dismissed.
15. It is further submitted that vide sale deed dt. 01.10.1977, the plaintiff no. 1 alongwith the defendant no. 3 purchased the property being agricultural land bearing Khasra no. 58 area 0.0250 Hect, 59 area 0.0400 Hect, 60 area 0.0450, 61 area 0.1000 Hec. in all area 0.2100 Hectares or 0.52 acres situated in village Daniyon-Ka-danda Pargana Central Doon, District Dehradun, which was duly registered on 03.10.1997. As such, the description of the property given by the plaintiffs is incorrect and vehemently denied by the defendants. It is further submitted that the said property was decided to be used for charitable purposes. However, this fact was denied that a decision was taken to erect some temporary construction. On the contrary, it is submitted that it was decided to construct a temple and old age home, for which the entire contribution was made by the defendants. It is further submitted that the defendants are not aware of the reason for the plaintiffs having not participated in the affairs of the Trust.
16. It is further submitted that the decisions of the defendant no. 1 Trust are being taken in conformity of the Trust Deed and to further the conformity of the trust deed and to further the objectives of the Trust. This fact is denied by the defendant that defendant no. 1 repeatedly gave evasive and contradictory replied to the plaintiffs as alleged. It is further submitted that no such occasion had arisen and neither any instance of this kind has been mentioned the contentions of the plaintiff are completely evasive, unsubstantiated and false. It is further submitted that CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 13 of 26 the property in question vests with the Trust and is the Trust property. The defendants are not aware of the plaintiffs having visited Dehradun on 02.05.2013. It is further submitted that proper financial records are being maintained in respect of the affairs of the Trust. It is further submitted that the new Trustees have been appointed in conformity with the rights and obligations and the powers vested vide the Trust Deed. It is further submitted that the defendants are not aware of the alleged fact of the plaintiffs being out of country on 01.03.2013. The plaintiff have not been participating and taking interest in the affairs of the Trust. It is further submitted that the defendants have never opposed the participation of the plaintiffs in the affairs of the Trust and it is the plaintiffs who have no interest or inclination to participate in the affairs of the Trust and to further the objectives of the Trust.
17. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs were informed of the new Trustees being introduced. It is submitted that as the defendant no. 3 has been entirely contributing towards the affairs of the Trust including the purchase of the land, the construction of building, the day to day maintenance of the building and upkeep and other social activities being carried out by the Trust, and as the activities being carried out by the Trust, and as the defendant no. 3 is a senior citizen of approximately 77 years of age and may not be able to actively participate in the day to day affairs of the Trust in the time to come, the said Trustees have been appointed as the social and religious and only the people who are trust- worthy and have an inclination to further the objectives of the Trust as also to honour the objectives of the Trust are required to be inducted in the interest of the functioning of the Trust and its objectives. Moreover, CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 14 of 26 the son and the brother of the defendant no. 3, who have now deceased were the Trustees of the defendant no. 1 Trust and the defendants no. 6 to 10 are the legal heirs of the said deceased Trustees and as such, no new person has been introduced.
18. It is further submitted that plaintiff have themselves admitted that they have been busy elsewhere over the period of time and as such, they have not been able to devote their time for the Trust and its objectives and affairs. The plaintiffs are falsely thrusting the blame of mismanagement and misappropriation on the defendants without even mentioning a single instance or complaint or any evidence to this effect. The contentions of the plaintiffs are completely false and unfounded and are liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that no occasions has arisen for the plaintiffs to file the present suit and to seek the injunctive and other reliefs against the defendants as alleged or otherwise. It is submitted that the present suit and accompanying application are not maintainable. It is further submitted that the defendants have been carrying out the activities in consonance with the stated objectives of the Trust and as such, no directions are required to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. It is submitted that the the entire finances of the Trust are property maintained and documented and copies of the same are being filed and as such, no direction is called for on this account also. It is submitted that the no cause of action has arisen on any occasions and the present suit alongwith the accompanying application is liable to be dismissed.
REPLICATION
19. In the replication, the plaintiff has denied all the contentions CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 15 of 26 of the defendant on merits and submitted that the property in question was purchased vide sale deed dt. 01.10.1977. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have contributed generously towards the trust and besides the amount of Rs. 21,000/-, other some of amounts donations have also been contributed towards corpus funds and the plaintiffs are in process of locating the other receipts of the same. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have never been informed of the meting or of the decision which have been taken unilaterally behind the back of the plaintiff. This fact is also denied by the plaintiff that the present suit is not only devoid of cause of action but also not maintainable or as such it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have any interest in the trust or as such no leave is required to be granted to the plaintiffs. All the remaining facts and vehemently denied by the plaintiff.
Issues
20. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed on 10.09.2015:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of account as claimed in prayer clause(i) of the suit? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for in prayer clause (ii) of the suit?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed in the prayer clause(iii) of the suit? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed in the prayer clause(iv) of the suit? (OPP)
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed in the prayer clause(v) of the suit? (OPP) CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 16 of 26
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed in the prayer clause(vi) of the suit? (OPP)
7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff has been valued properly for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction and if not its effects under the circumstances of the case? (OPP)
8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 3 of the Charitable Religious Trust Act, 1920? (OPD) Plaintiff's evidence
21. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined two witnesses i.e. PW-1 Sh. Pawan Chopra , PW-2 Sh. Parveen Kumar Rana and PW-3 Sh. Navratan Singh.
PW-1 is the plaintiff i.e. Sh. Pawan Chopra tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Trust Deed Ex. PW-1/1 already Ex. PW-2/1 by PW-2 Sh. Parveen Kumar Rana UDC office of Sub-Registrar-1, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.
(ii) Extracts of meeting of Trustees dated 01.03.2013 are Ex. PW-1/2 (colly)
(iii) Photographs are Ex. PW-1/3, Ex. PW-1/4, Ex. PW-1/5 and Ex. PW-
1/6. Ex. PW-1/7 is not on record
(iv) Receipts are Ex. PW 1/8 and Ex. PW-1/9
The witness was duly cross-examined. During he cross-
examination notice dt. 17.09.2016 was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D1 and notice dt. 24.08.2016 was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D-2, photograph showing the plaintiff at Trust site on 27.04.2009 was inadvertently again exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D1 and document examination report of truth lab CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 17 of 26 Forensic Services. The slips of Manav Sewa Dharmarth Trust were exhibited as Ex. P-1 & P-2.
22. PW-2 Sh. Parveen Kumar Rana was the summoned witness and the record brought by him is Ex. PW-2/1.
Cross-examination of the said witness is not required in view of Section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act.
23. PW-3 Sh. Navrattan Singh was also summoned witness and the record brought by him is Ex. PW-3/A. The witness was duly cross-examined.
24. In support of his case, the defendant has examined only one witnesses i.e. DW-1 Sh. G.R.Popli DW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Mark A is the copy of the sale deed dt. 01.10.1997, later exhibited as Ex. DW-1/PX2.
(ii) Mark B is trust deed dt. 02.07.2004, later exhibited as Ex. PW-2/1 with the consent of both the parties.
(iii) Mark C is the financial statements of the defendant no. 1.
The witness was duly cross-examined and during cross- examination original of PW-1/2B part of Ex. PW-1/2B (colly) was put on record as Ex. DW-1/PX1. Notice of the application under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC alongwith postal receipts is Ex. PW-1/P-1. Reply to the notice to the said application is Ex. DW-1/P-2. Copy of circular is Ex. DW-1/P-3. Final arguments
25. I have heard detailed final arguments as addressed by Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and Shri Rajan Chaudhary, CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 18 of 26 Ld. Counsel for defendants and perused the judicial record. Written submission filed by both the parties are also taken into consideration. Findings My issue wise findings are as under :
26. Issue no. 1. : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of account as claimed in prayer clause(i) of the suit? (OPP) The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. Vide statement dt. 15.11.2022 the plaintiff modified the present relief and requested that the plaintiff may be permitted to inspect the accounts of defendant no. 1 wherever he intends to by sending two week prior notice to defendant no. 3 and the defendant no. 1 & 3 be directed accordingly. Vide the separate statement of defendant no. 3/Managing Trustee of defendant no. 1 of even date he gave his no objection for the same for the plaintiff to carry out inspection of the account for the period three years prior to the filing of Court and that in future any information regarding accounts subject to the condition of two weeks prior notice. Thus, in view of the above the present issue is disposed off accordingly.
27. Issue no. 2. : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for in prayer clause (ii) of the suit?
The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought the declaration declaring the appointment of purported new trustees being defendant no. 6 to 10 vide the extract of the minutes of meeting dt. 01.03.2013 as null and void. Defendant no. 3/Managing Trustee of defendant no. 1 in his cross-examination admitted that the Minutes dt. 01.03.2013 were only the draft and were never CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 19 of 26 finalized nor implemented. Also that, defendant no. 6 to 10 were never appointed as Trustees by way of Minutes of Meeting dt. 01.03.2013. It was argued by the ld. Counsel by the plaintiff that the appointment of defendant no. 9 as a trustee through resolution dt. 17.09.2016 was hit by the Doctrine of list-pendens, however, he failed to show how the said doctrine applies to the present facts and circumstances and the relief of declaration filed against the resolution dt. 01.03.2013 only. No relief qua the subsequent appointment of any of the trustees, if any has been sought by way of the present suit. Thus, in view of the discussion above and evidence on record, it is duly proved by the plaintiff that the resolution dt. 01.03.2013 was never finalized and implemented, therefore, the same is declared as null and void. Accordingly, the present issue is decided in the favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
28. Issue no. 3 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed in the prayer clause(iii) of the suit? (OPP) The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought the mandatory injunction in the favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, their agents, associates, servants, employees and agents etc. to reconstitute the Board of Trustees and Board of Management of the "Manav Seva Dharmarth Charitable Trust". The onus to prove the same was upon the plaintiff. During the course of arguments, plaintiff agreed that in view of the admission of defendant no. 3/defendant no. 1 that defendant no. 6 to 10 were not appointed as trustees by way of Minutes of Meeting dt. 01.03.2013, the present issue did not need separate adjudication and thus was not pressed upon. The CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 20 of 26 present issue is therefore disposed off accordingly.
29. Issue no. 4. : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed in the prayer clause(iv) of the suit? (OPP) & Issue no. 6 :Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed in the prayer clause(vi) of the suit? (OPP) Both the issues decided together as the same are interconnected. The onus to prove the said issues is upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory injunction in the favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, their agents, associates, servants, employees and agents etc. to manage the affairs of the affairs of the defendant no. 1 "Manav Seva Dharmarth Charitable Trust" strictly as per the Trust Deed dated 02.07.2004 and carry out the activities only in consonance with the stated objectives of the said Trust dated 02.07.2004 and restraining the defendant no. 2 to 10, their agents, associates, servants, employees and agents etc. from mismanaging the affairs and misusing the funds of the defendant no. 1 trust. Many contradictions came on record during the cross-examination of PW-1/plaintiff no. 1 as to the averments made in the plaint as well as his evidence affidavit. The plaintiff failed to prove any irregularity in the operation, mismanagement, misappropriation or mis utilisation of funds of defendant no. 1, violation of the aim and objects of the trust/defendant no. 1 as alleged in the plaint. No documents or witnesses qua the misutilization or misappropriation of the funds of defendant no. 1 or to the effect that the defendant no. 3 was CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 21 of 26 carrying out activities which were not in consonance with the objective of defendant no. 1 were placed on record by the plaintiff. Thus, in view of the discussion above, plaintiffs having failed to prove any mismanagement or misappropriation of funds of defendant no. 1 as alleged in the plaint, the present issues are decided in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
30. Issue no. 5. : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of mandatory injunction as claimed in the prayer clause(v) of the suit? (OPP) The onus to prove the said issue is upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought the relief of mandatory injunction in the favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, their agents, associates, servants, employees and agents etc. to remove the plaque from the land and only install plaques/display board of the trust without reference to any individual trustee or any other person. The photographs of the alleged plaque has not been exhibited or proved as per law, however, the defendants had admitted the plaque bearing the name of defendant no. 3 has been put up at the Dehradun site. It is not denied by both the parties that plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 3 has jointly purchased the Dehradun property and it was put into trust for charitable activities. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaque shows that the site was constructed by defendant no. 3 to 5 and not by trust and that no resolution was passed for display of the said plaque. Further that no trustee can claim any individuals accolades for any work done for the trust nor can claim that he has performed work for the trust in his individual capacity. Moreover, the plaque display the credit personally to defendant no. 3 and his wife CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 22 of 26 defendant no. 5. In reply, it has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the defendants that the funds contributed for construction at the Dehradun site were by the defendants only and not by the plaintiffs. Also that, plaintiffs have nowhere stated or put on record any evidence to show that they have paid any amount for the construction of mandir/bhawan/dharamshal etc. at the Dehradun site and PW-1 himself stated that he was unaware of the construction over the trust land.
31. It is the settled position of law that the relief of mandatory injunction is discretionary in nature. The installation of a plaque on the Dehradun site does not create any right, title or interest in the said property. Plaintiffs have failed to prove any violation of his personal right due to the installation of the plaque in question. It is also not denied by both the parties that the name of the trust also finds mention on the said plaque. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the Court is not inclined to grant the relief of mandatory injunction qua removal of the said plaque. The present issue is accordingly decided in the favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
32. Issue no. 7 : Whether the suit of the plaintiff has been valued properly for the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction and if not its effects under the circumstances of the case? (OPP) The onus to prove the same is upon the plaintiff. As per the plaint, the plaintiff has property valued the suit for the purpose of Court fees in view of reliefs sought. Defendants failed to put on record any defect in the valuation of the present suit for the purpose of Court fees. The registered office of defendant no. 1 is admittedly within the jurisdiction of this Court and all the meetings and books of accounts are CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 23 of 26 maintained in Delhi. Thus, in view of anything in contrary, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
33. Issue no. 8 : Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 3 of the Charitable Religious Trust Act, 1920? (OPD Section 3 in the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 is reproduced as under:
3. Power to apply to the court in respect of trusts of a charitable or religious nature.--Save as hereinafter provided in this Act, any person having an interest in any express or constructive trust created or existing for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature may apply by petition to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any substantial part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain an order embodying all or any of the following directions, namely:--
(1) directing the trustee to furnish the petitioner through the court with particulars as to the nature and objects of the trust, and of the value, condition, management and application of the subject-matter of the trust, and of the income belonging thereto, or as to any of these matters, and (2) directing that the accounts of the trust shall be examined and audited: Provided that no person shall apply for any such direction in respect of accounts relating to a period more than three years prior to the date of the petition.
The onus to prove upon the same was upon the defendants. It is argued by defendant no. 3 as the plot is in the village of Dehradun where the old age home is constructed, entire cause of action has accrued at Dehradun and is in regard of management of trust property situated at Dehradun. Also that, no part of the trust property is situated in Delhi and that the registered office the trust property is a private property of the defendant trust, therefore, in view of section 3 of the Charitable Religious Trust Act, 1920 the present Court has no jurisdiction. In reply, it is argued CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 24 of 26 by plaintiffs that Section 3 of the of the Charitable Religious Trust Act, 1920 nowhere bars the institution of the of the present suit before this Court and the relief sought in the present suit is not relateable to Section 3 of the Charitable Religious Trust Act, 1920 and the same could not have been granted to the petitioner by invoking the provisions of the same. The defendants have failed to show how the jurisdiction of the present Court in view of the relief asked is barred by Section 3 of the Charitable Religious Trust Act, 1920 and taking into view that the registered office of the defendant no. 1 is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court which is primarily responsible for carrying out the day to day activities affairs and management of the trust/defendant no. 1 and therefore it can be consider that the substantial part of the matter of the trust is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. No evidence has been led by the defendants to prove to the contrary. Therefore, the present issue is decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
34. Relief :
In view of the above discussion the suit is partly decreed in the favour of the plaintiffs with the following relief :
(i) Plaintiffs are held entitled to inspect the accounts of defendant no. 1, three years prior to the filing of the present case and in future any information regarding accounts be made available to them subject to the condition of giving two week prior notice to defendant no. 1 & 3.
(ii) A decree of declaration is hereby passed declaring the appointment of purported new trustees being defendant no. 6 to 10 vide the extract of the minutes of meeting dt. 01.03.2013 as null and void.
CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 25 of 26 Parties are directed to bear their own cost taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Mahima Rai Singh)
on 21st Day of January 2023 SCJ cum RC(West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 26 pages.)
CS SCJ No. 8987/16 Pawan chopra & Anr.Vs. Manav Sew Dharmarth Charitable Trus & ors Page No. 26 of 26