Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak ... vs Surjit Singh Cheema And Others on 4 January, 2012
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
RSA No. 5137 of 2011 (O & M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 5137 of 2011 (O & M)
DATE OF DECISION: January 04, 2012
Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee .........APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
Surjit Singh Cheema and others ......RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate,
for the appellant(s).
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby an injunction has been granted to the plaintiffs and the defendant/appellant has been restrained from taking forcible possession of the suit land measuring 39 kanals 3 marlas except for the land comprising in Khasra No. 10//16 (8-7) and 17 (5-2).
2. The case of the plaintiffs were that they were founder trustees of Guru Teg Bahadur Educational Trust vide a registered Trust Deed dated 06.08.1998. In order to establish the first rural public school, the founder trustees i.e. the plaintiffs had approached the committee of notified Gurudwara Thara Sahib Hazara for leasing the land for the said public school in the rural area for which the committee of the Gurudwara Thara Sahib Hazara passed resolution for grant of lease to the said Guru Teg Bahadur Educational Trust in pursuance of the said resolution. The Gurudwara Thara Sahib executed a lease deed dated 07.09.1998 in favour of RSA No. 5137 of 2011 (O & M) 2 the said trust for the period w.e.f. 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2097. It was further the case of the plaintiffs that there was a dispute between the two factions of the Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee and the group in power has threatened to take possession of the leased property forcibly and illegal alongwith constructions made by the plaintiffs. The other members of the trust were yet to be appointed as per the terms and conditions of the Trust Deed. In order to safeguard the interest of the Trust, the founder member of the trust had instituted the present suit in the Court since the defendant sent a letter to the plaintiffs that the said Guru Teg Bahadur Educational Trust stood dissolved. Accordingly permanent injunction was sought for.
3. The defendant-appellant took various pleas that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit, suit was not maintainable and to complete the trust, the members from the quoram of SGPC had to be nominated. Three members would form valid quoram and the resolution passed on 20.07.1997 is no resolution in the eyes of law as two members namely Gurdip Kaur and Ranjit Singh gave in writing on 27.10.1999 that no proceedings tool place in their presence. It is also admitted by the defendant-Committee that they had not nominated the six members and the President could be nominated out of the six members and, therefore, the trust was not deemed to be formed and the alleged Trust Deed was not lawful. Accordingly, the suit was contested.
4. The Trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the issues that whether the plaintiffs were entitled to injunction, whether the plaintiffs had locus standi, whether the suit is maintainable and whether the plaintiffs had come with clean hands. After taking into consideration the evidence on the record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that a lease Deed Ex.P-3 RSA No. 5137 of 2011 (O & M) 3 was executed in favour of Guru Teg Bahadur Educational Trust and vide resolution dated 20.07.1997, Jaidad Sub Committee constituted by the SGPC had passed a resolution for leasing out the suit property measuring 39 kanals 3 marlas for a period of 99 years in favour of the Trust which was to have 11 founder members with six members to be nominated by SGPC and the President of the SGPC to be Ex-officio Chairman. It was also noticed that SGPC passed a Resolution No. 779 dated 19.05.1998 Ex.P-4 giving its approval for leasing out the suit property in favour of the Trust for a laudable object of running an educational institution to educate masses at large for a period of 99 years on lease money of ` 100 per year. This fact was also admitted by DW-1-Avtar Singh in his cross examination that the SGPC had recommended the leasing out in favour of the Trust and the lease had not been cancelled by any Court till date and that the school was being run over the suit land by the plaintiffs. The fact that the defendant- Committee had not nominated six members was also taken into account that the Committee could not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong when it has failed to appoint six members/trustees, as per the Trust which were to include 5 founder members and 6 ordinary members which were to be nominated by SGPC. Accordingly, it was held that the resolution dated 20.07.1997 passed by the Jaidad Sub Committee could not be held to be invalid nor the lease deed dated 07.09.1998 executed in pursuance of the said resolution as well as Resolution No. 779 dated 19.05.1998.
5. It is further noticed that Gurudwara Thara Sahib Hazara had filed a separate suit and got a decree regarding part of the suit land comprising in Khara No. 10//16 (8-7) and 17 (5-2) and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs had been dismissed on 09.11.2006 by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. RSA No. 5137 of 2011 (O & M) 4 Accordingly, on the issue of locus standi, it was held that once the possession of the plaintiffs was there being founder members of the Trust and they were promoting the objectives of SGPC by doing charitable job of opening/running an educational institution, they could legally protect their possession and were entitled to the relief of injunction except for the land regarding which Gurudwara Thara Sahib Hazara had got a decree and accordingly the relief of permanent injunction has been granted to the plaintiffs whereby the defendants were restrained from taking forcible possession of the suit land.
6. Two appeals came to be filed before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, one by the defendant-Committee and the other by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Trial Court. Both the appeals have been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide decision dated 12.08.2011. The Lower Appellate Court has noticed that the aim of the trust was to give education to the people of the villages and the founder members were to get the Trust Deed registered and the operation started from the date of registration and that apart from five founder members, six trustees were to be nominated by the defendant-Committee and there was a specific clause how the Trust can be wound up. The Lower Appellate Court noticed that Gurudwara Thara Sahib Hazara had passed a resolution dated 20.07.1997 and in pursuance of the said resolution, Resolution No. 779 dated 19.05.1998 had been passed by the defendant-Committee whereby the leasing out of the property in favour of the Trust of which the plaintiff were the founder members, was approved. The said lease was for a period of 99 years which has been proved as Ex.P-3. Admittedly, the Court noticed that the lease had not been cancelled by any Court and the school was being run RSA No. 5137 of 2011 (O & M) 5 on the said premises and there is nothing to show that the Trust had been dissolved. Accordingly, the plaintiffs, being the founder members of the Trust, have a right to protect the possession and the structure raised by the Trust.
7. Similarly, the Lower Appellate Court also noticed that relief regarding two khasra numbers had been declined while dismissing the appeals.
8. Resultantly, the present appeal has been filed and it has been vehemently argued by the counsel for the appellant that since the six members had not been nominated, therefore, the Trust had not come into existence as such and the founder members in their personal capacity had no right to or locus standi to pursue the litigation and the suit was not maintainable. The said argument is liable to be rejected since the suit is only for permanent injunction and admittedly as has been found by the Courts below the founder members are running the educational institution on the leased out premises. Gurudwara Thara Sahib Hazara had initially passed a resolution on 20.07.1997 wherein it had agreed to lease out the land to the Trust and in pursuance of the said resolution, the appellant- Committee also passed Resolution No. 779 on 19.05.1998 and thereafter the lease deed came into existence on 07.09.1998. Accordingly, the founder members have been in possession of the property. Non-nomination of six members from the appellant-Committee for whatever reasons would not debar the founder members from protecting their interest as they are only seeking the relief of protection that they should not be forcibly thrown out from the premises in which educational work is being carried out for the benefit of the village and the surrounding rural area. The plaintiffs are in RSA No. 5137 of 2011 (O & M) 6 possession in pursuance of valid resolutions and the said resolutions have not been cancelled. It is open to the appellant-Committee to take appropriate steps to seek repossession in accordance with law and this relief has not been curtailed by the Courts below. The basic principles of granting injunction have been kept in mind by the Courts below and, therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned orders as no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal.
9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
04.01.2012 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE