Delhi District Court
Shree Shiv Mandir Nyas Trust vs Azadpur Colony Residents Welfare ... on 27 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITU RAJ : CIVIL JUDGE : NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CS SCJ 35782-16
CNR No. -DLNT03-000623-2014
In reference:
SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST
Having its regd. Office at:
Shiv Mandir MCD Colony,
Azadpur, Delhi-110033
Through its Managing Trustee
Acharya Sudhir Sharma
s/o Pt. Sunder Lal Sharma ............. Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Azadpur Colony Residents Welfare
Association (regd.)
D-61, MCD Colony,
Azadpur, Delhi-110033.
2. Shri Vinod Kaushik
r/o D-20, MCD Colony,
Azadpur, Delhi-110033
Also At: Secretary,
Azadpur Colony Residents Welfare
Association (REGD.)
D-61, MCD Colony,
Azadpur, Delhi-110033.
3. Shri Rajbir Gupta
r/o G-3/92, third floor,
Model Town-III,
Delhi-110009.
PRITU Digitally signed
by PRITU RAJ
RAJ Date: 2024.08.27
16:05:39 +05'30'
CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 1 of 17
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
4. Shri Suresh Pandey,
r/o E-138, MCD Colony,
Azadpur, Delhi-110033.
5. Shri Jay Kumar
6. Smt. Sunita
w/o Shri Jay Kumar
Both r/o E-468, MCD Colony,
Azadpur, Delhi-110033.
7. Smt. Dhanpati
r/o E-469, MCD Colony,
Azadpur, Delhi-110033. .........Defendants
Date of Institution : 07.04.2014
Date of reservation of Judgment : 07.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 27.08.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff trust, through it's managing trustee, against the defendant seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant or anyone claiming through them from interfering with the religious and charitable activities carried out by the Plaintiff trust at the Mandir premises built on 1000 sq yds, MCD Colony, Azadpur, Delhi (as shown in red colour in the site plan) and from throwing the goods of the Plaintiff trust lying at the said premises. An injunction has also been sought restraining the Defendants from dispossessing and / or ousting Acharya Sudhir Sharma and his family members from the portions of PRITU Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:09:40 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 2 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
the aforesaid mandir in their occupation (as shown in green, orange and yellow colors in the site plan) and from throwing their personal goods / belongings and from interfering in any manner with the peaceful use, occupation and possession qua the above portions.
FACTS AS PER THE PLAINT :-
2. The case of the plaintiff as per plaint in brief is that the Plaintiff is a trust created for charitable purposes having its regd. office at Shiv Mandir MCD Colony, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 by virtue of duly registered trust deed dated 20.08.2007 with the present suit being instituted by Acharya Sudhir Sharma, Managing trustee, who has been duly authorized and empowered to institute this suit and depose on the facts vide. board resolution dated 01-04-2014 passed in the Board of Trustees of the plaintiff. It is claimed that the Shiv Mandir is ad- measuring 1000 sq yds and the religious structure thereupon was raised by Pt. Jagatram Shastri 1968 from his exclusive funds who started residing in the Mandir premises along with his family members while managing the day to day affairs and other religious activities. Plaintiff claims that initially, Pt. Jagatram Shastri and later on, his sons including Plaintiff's father Pt. Sunder Lal Sharma had been performing pooja and other devotional activities in the mandir with Acharya Sudhir Sharma joining his father and grand father in the said activities. It is claimed that Acharya Sudhir Sharma was borne, brought up and married in the mandir premises with his children also born therein. Acharya Sudhir Sharma obtained water, electricity and telephone connection at the premises of the mandir while holding bank accounts of the said address. Plaintiff claims that certain Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ PRITU RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:05:58 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 3 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
portions, shown in green in the site plan, is under the exclusive occupation and possession of Acharya Sudhir Sharma whereas the portion in orange colour is under the exclusive occupation and possession of Shri Mohan Lal Sharma with portion in yellow colour being under common usage. It is accordingly claimed that Acharya Sudhir Sharma and his uncle are in continuous physical possession of the entire mandir premises. Plaintiff claims that D-1 is an RWA formed in 2012, with D-2 being its Secretary and it is claimed that all the Defendants have an evil eye upon the trust premises wanting to grab the land of the Plaintiff trust and, to this end, they have been creating obstruction in the smooth functioning of the mandir trust. On 30.03.2013, office bearers of D-1 with D-2 to 7 entered the mandir trust and forcibly attempted to conduct an election meeting. Upon being objected, they got enraged and threatened to throw away goods and personal belonging of the Plaintiff trust while misbehaving and assaulting family members of Acharya Sudhir Sharma. The said incident was reported to local PS again on 31.03.2014 while Acharya Sudhir Sharma was performing pooja on the eve of first Navratra, D-2 to D-7 along with their associates came to the mandir premises and threw away the pooja samagri and also started throwing goods and belongings of Acharya Sudhir Sharma and his family members threatening them that they will not reside in the mandir premises. This incident was reported to local PS again but to no avail.
3. It is claimed that acts of Defendants are malafide and unwarranted as Acharya Sudhir Sharma and his family members have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the mandir premises Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU RAJ RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:06:11 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 4 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
which is duly corroborated from water, electricity, telephone and gas bills. Hence, the present suit.
PRAYER:-
4. Plaintiff has made the following prayer:-
(a) That a decree of permanent injunction be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant restraining the Defendant, the office bearers or anyone claiming through them from interferring with the religious and charitable activities carried out by the Plaintiff trust at the Mandir premises built on 1000 sq yds, MCD Colony, Azadpur, Delhi (as shown in red colour in the site plan) and from throwing the goods of the Plaintiff trust lying at the said premises.
(b) An injunction has also been sought restraining the Defendants from dispossessing and / or ousting Acharya Sudhir Sharma and his family members from the portions of the aforesaid mandir in their occupation (as shown in green, orange and yellow colours in the site plan) and from throwing their personal goods / belongings and from interferring in any manner with the peaceful use, occupation and possession qua the abovesaid portions.
(c) Costs.
(d) Any other relief.
DEFENCE :-
5. In the present case, the defendants were duly served and entered appearance along with their counsel on 22.05.2014. A joint WS was filed where it was claimed that under the garb of the present suit, the Plaintiff is claiming exclusive rights to the property of temple whereas it belongs to all the residents and MCD. It is claimed that the entire premises is a public property and the prayer sought can only be Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ PRITU RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:06:24 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 5 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
granted when he is able to show his legal rights.
6. It was claimed that the Plaintiff has started claiming itself to be the owner of the suit property and fresh construction is being raised without consent of the residents where the public being restrained from using the portions of the temple from common purposes. It is claimed that Plaintiff's suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party, i.e., MCD and the Plaintiff does not have any locus or Cause of action, to file the present suit. On merits, the entire plaint was denied in toto.
ISSUES:-
7. Vide order dated 06.10.2018, the following issues were framed:
I) Whether the plaintiff has any locus to file the present suit? OPD.
II) Whether the MCD is a necessary party in the present suit? OPD.
III) Whether any cause of action arose in the favour of the plaintiff or not? OPD.
IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? OPP.
V) Relief. DOCUMENTS & EVIDENCE:-
8. In support of her case, the plaintiff examined Acharya Sudhir Sharma as PW-1 and relied upon the documents:
(a) Ex.PW1/A (OSR) is the copy registered trust deed dated 20.08.2017.
(b) Ex.PW1/B is the board resolution.
(c) Ex.PW1/C is the cheque no. 064429 of the account of the plaintiff trust.
(d) Ex.PW1/D is site plan.
PRITU Digitally signed
by PRITU RAJ
RAJ Date: 2024.08.27
16:06:37 +05'30'
CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 6 of 17
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
(e) Ex.PW1/E (OSR), Ex.PW1/F (OSR) and Ex.PW1/G (OSR) are the copy of the aadhar card, election I card and ration card respectively.
(f) Ex.PW1/H (Colly two pages) is the MTNL telephone bills in the name of deponent.
(g) Ex.PW1/I (OSR) is the copy of the electricity bills in the name of deponent.
(h) Ex.PW1/J (OSR) is the gas bills in the name of deponent.
9. This witness was cross-examined and discharged.
10. PW-2 was a summoned witness. He brought copy of security voucher issued in the favour of Shri Sudhir Sharma, Shiv Mandir, MCD Colony, Azadpur, Delhi on 05.03.1999 vide consumer no. AG19694 in respect of gas connection issued in his favour. Same was Mark A. Termination voucher no. 0482586 issued on 04.12.2002 and same was Ex.PW2/A (OSR). Copy of amount received in respect of DBC SB No. 4186086 dated 04.12.2002 was exhibited as Ex.PW2/B (OSR). Copy of Shri Sudhir Sharma's ration card was Mark B. The details of the continuous facility / connection provided to Shri Sudhir Sharma was Ex.PW2/C.
11. PW-3 was a summoned witness. He brought the summoned record i.e. application in respect of issue of new connection K No. 36305084242 dated 28.12.2005. Same was Ex.PW3/A (OSR). Copy of appraisal sheet was Ex.PW3/B (OSR). Copy of the documents check list was Ex.PW3/C (OSR) (consisting two pages). Copy of application for new connection was Ex.PW3/D (OSR) (consisting four pages).
PRITU Digitally signed by
PRITU RAJ
RAJ Date: 2024.08.27
16:07:06 +05'30'
CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 7 of 17
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
Copy of the test notice was Ex.PW3/E (OSR). Current bill of connection no. 36305084242 and CA number 60000286116, which was a computer generated copy and the same was Ex.PW3/F for a period of 17.01.2020 to 18.02.2020.
12. PW-4 was a summoned witness. He brought certified copy of account opening form alongwith KYC as well as certain documents and the entire statement of account of Shree Shiv Mandir Nyas which is a trust. Same are Ex.PW4/A (Colly) (Total pages 75).
13. PW-5 was a summoned witness. He brought account opening form (OSR), form 60 (OSR), resolution (OSR), trust deed, voter id card of Shri Sudhir Sharma, passbook of Deeksha Bakshi alongwith acknowledgment letter, ration card of Shri Nand Kishore, Voter id card of Ms. Shobha Dixit, PAN card of Deeksha Bakshi, DL of Shri Sanjay Kumar and acknowledgment letter of Rajasthan Bank as previously ICICI Bank was Rajasthan Bank. Certified copies of the same are exhibited as Ex.PW5/1 (Colly) (running into 46 pages).
14. PW-6 was a summoned witness. He brought record of installation address of Shiv Mandir, bill payment record, application for telephone connection (customer acquisition) form, specimen signature sheet, application for telephone connection form, acknowledgment slip for registration cum demand note and copy of ration card. Same are exhibited as Ex.PW6/1 (Colly) (running into 10 pages).
Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ PRITU RAJ
Date: 2024.08.27
16:07:20 +05'30'
CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 8 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
15. PW-7 was a summoned witness. He brought registered trust deed dated 20.08.2007 registered on 20.08.2007 Vol. no. 299 registration no. 4833, page 27 to 37, additional book no. 4. Same were exhibited as Ex.PW7/1 (OSR).
16.PE stood closed on 14.02.2024.
17. In defence, despite multiple opportunities, no DE was led. DE was closed on 20.07.2024.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
18. Final arguments have been heard at length on behalf of the plaintiff.
Despite opportunity, no final arguments were led by the defendant. Accordingly, the right of the defendants to lead final arguments stood closed on 07-08-2024.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-
19. Before embarking to decide the present case, it would be appropriate to reiterate the burden of proof required to be discharged in civil proceedings. As laid down in Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Jaspal Singh, (2009) 7 SCC 330, the burden which ought to be discharged in civil proceedings in not as strict as in criminal cases and in order for any party to succeed, he/it is required to prove his/its case on the preponderance of probabilities. The relevant portion of the aforesaid pronouncement is hereby Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ PRITU RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:07:35 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 9 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
produced here for the sake of brevity It has been held that there is a marked difference as to the effect of evidence, namely, the proof, in civil and criminal proceed- ings. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral cer- tainty as convinces the mind of the court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable doubt."
20.Further, Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "burden of proof" and laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. In view of Section 103 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lied on any particular person. Further, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
21.Having determined the burden of proof required to be discharged in civil cases, this court will now proceed to give it issues wise findings Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU RAJ RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:07:49 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 10 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
as per the issues framed on 06.10.2018, are as follows:-
Issue no I I) Whether the plaintiff has any locus to file the present suit? OPD.
22. The onus of proving this issue lay upon the Defendant. The term locus standi means the right to appear in a Court or before anybody on a given question (The Merriam Webster dictionary). A person who is a stranger to disputed matter cannot be allowed to interfere in judicial proceedings. No evidence has been led by the Defendant. However, it is still obligatory to look into the requirements mandated by law to be fulfilled prior to the institution of a suit by a trust.
23. The present suit has been instituted by one Acharya Sudhir Sharma who claims that he is the managing trustee of the Plaintiff trust and further claims that he derives the authorization to institute the present suit vide board resolution dated 01.04.2014. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Plaintiff trust has been created by means of a duly registered trust deed dated 20.08.2007. It is settled law that a Trust is not a distinct juristic personality capable to sue or being sued in its own name without its Trustees and all the Trustees are necessary parties to any suit in relation to the Trust. The question which requires determination is that whether a suit can be instituted by one trustee on the basis of a resolution passed by the other co-trustees. The law in this regard is no longer res integra. As held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Duli Chand Vs. Mahabir Pershad Trilok Chand Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ PRITU RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:08:03 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 11 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
Charitable Trust, Delhi, AIR 1984 DELHI 145, a suit by one of the co-trustee on the basis of a resolution passed unanimously is not maintainable. The relevant portion is reproduced below for the sake of brevity:
''A suit by one of the co-trustees on the basis of a resolution passed unanimously by all other co-trustees authorising that trustee to file the suit would not be maintainable. The position of trustees is exactly the same as of any other set of co-owners who must necessarily join together to file a suit. It is possible for some of the trustees to authorise the others to file a suit. But this could only be done by the execution of a power of attorney. It cannot be done by a resolution. If ''A'', ''B'' and ''C'' are the owners of a property, they have to bring a joint suit for possession. They are all necessary parties to the suit. They cannot by resolution allow some of the other co-owners to file the suit. In such a suit, all the owners must be joined as parties as either plaintiffs or as defendants. Usually, the co-owners who are not joined in the suit are joined as proforma defendants. But, it is not possible for some of the owners to file a suit without joining others. As trustees are owners of the property, the same principle applies. They all have to be joined as parties to the suit, but they can execute the powers of attorney allowing themselves to be represented by some other co- trustees.
A trust is not a legal entity as such. In fact, a Trust may be defined as an obligation imposed on the ostensible owner of property to use the same for a particular object for the benefit of a named beneficiary or a charity. Thus all Trustees in law are owners of the property but they are obliged to use the same in a particular manner. If a number of trustees exist, they are joint owners of the property. It is not like a Corporation which has a legal existence of its own and therefore can appoint an agent. A Trust is not in this sense a legal entity. It is the trustees who are the legal entities.Digitally signed by
PRITU RAJ PRITU RAJ
Date: 2024.08.27
16:08:19 +05'30'
CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 12 of 17
RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
24. In the present case, the suit has been instituted by one Shri Acharya Sudhir Sharma who is one of the four trustees of the Plaintiff trust as is apparently clear from Ex PW-1/B, i.e., the board resolution. The other three trustees have not been arrayed as parties to the present suit. Reliance has been placed upon the board resolution to claim the authorisation to institute the suit which in light of Duli Chand (Supra) is not tenable for it has been categorically held in the said decision that authorisation by trustees to file a suit cannot be done by way of a resolution. The Plaintiff would still be having the locus standi to institute the present suit if the managing trustee would have been so authorised by the trust deed. However, that is not the case. Perusal of the clause 7 of the trust deed, which enumerates the power of managing trustee, shows that it does not contain any stipulation authorising the managing trustee to institute suits without impleading other trustees as parties to the suit. In fact, perusal of clause 13 of the trust deed, which enumerates the power of trustees, shows that the power to defend the trust by instituting and filing legal proceedings inclusive of plaints and written statements vests in all the trustees with no specific authorization being made in favour of the managing trustee.. Hence, even the trust deed does not grant any authorization to the managing trustee to institute a suit without due authorization by the other trustees.
25. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is the Plaintiff does not have the locus standi to institute the present suit. The suit is held to be not Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ PRITU RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:08:31 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 13 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
maintainable. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the Defendant and against the plaintiff.
Issue no II II) Whether the MCD is a necessary party in the present suit? OPD.
26. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the Defendant. The term necessary party, as defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd and Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 417 is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence, no effective decree can be passed. However, no evidence has been led by the Defendant in the present matter. Even otherwise, the plaintiff being the dominus litus can't be compelled to fight a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The same has been reiterated in the recent decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kranti Arora Vs. Digjam Ltd [CM(M) NO. 51983 OF 2018 IN RFA(OS) NO. 7/2011] where it was held "The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance."
27. In the present case, no title has been claimed by the Plaintiff and the only relief claimed is one of injunction against the Defendants. No relief has been claimed against MCD. Hence, MCD would not be a necessary party to the present suit. This issue is accordingly decided in Digitally signed by PRITU PRITU RAJ RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:08:44 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 14 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. III III) Whether any cause of action arose in the favour of the plaintiff or not? OPD.
28. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the Defendant. Cause of action, as defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. AP Agencies , Salem (1989) 2 SCC 163, means a bundle of facts which has to be proved by the plaintiff in order to succeed in the suit. In other words, the plaintiff ought to show the existence of a legal right and the denial of the same by the defendant. However, no evidence has been led by the Defendant. Hence, it is only the plaint and the evidence led by the Plaintiff which would be considered for adjudicating upon this issue.
29. In the present case, perusal of the plaint shows that the Plaintiff trust has claimed itself to be in possession of the suit property. PW-1 has stepped into the witness box and reiterated the same. The said version has not been controverted in cross examination of PW-1. As already stated above, cause of action would entail the proof of facts alleged by the Plaintiff in order to be successful in the suit. since Plaintiff has claimed to be the owner and in possession of the suit property, there does exist a cause of action in the Plaintiff's favour. It is a totally different question as to whether the Plaintiff is able to prove the said facts in order to succeed in the case or whether the suit has been instituted as per law. At the cost of repetition, it is again stated that in Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ PRITU RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:08:58 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 15 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
order to decide whether there exists a Cause of action or not, the test would be to determine whether there are facts pleaded by the Plaintiff to show the existence of a right in his favour. Whether the Plaintiff is able to prove the said facts is not a question to be looked into while determining the existence of a Cause of action. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE NO. IV IV) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? OPP.
30. The onus to prove the said issue was upon the Plaintiff. As already adjudicated above, the Plaintiff does not have any locus standi to file the present suit since it has not been instituted by all the trustees nor has it been instituted by a trustee who has been duly authorised by the other trustees. Hence, the suit is not maintainable (Duli Chand, supra). Now, the question as to whether any injunction can be granted in case a suit is held to be not maintainable. The law in this regard is well settled. As held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (deceased) through LRs Vs. Maniben Jagmalbhai (deceased) through LRs, (2022) 12 SCC 128, once a suit is held to be not maintainable, no relief of injunction can be granted. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
31. In light of the aforesaid observations, the suit of plaintiff stands PRITU RAJ Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:09:11 +05'30' CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 16 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.
dismissed. Given the factual matrix, no order as to costs.
32.Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
33. File be consigned to the record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open PRITU RAJ Digitally signed by PRITU RAJ Date: 2024.08.27 16:09:23 +05'30' Court on 27.08.2024 (PRITU RAJ) CIVIL JUDGE (NORTH) ROHINI/DELHI/27.08.2024 CS SCJ 35782-16 SHREE SHIV MANDIR NYAS TRUST Vs. AZADPUR COLONY Page No. 17 of 17 RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) ORS.