Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghbir Singh And Others vs Dharamsala Bani Lodhi Trust And Others on 28 March, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 5470 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 5470 of 2010
Date of Decision : March 28, 2012
Raghbir Singh and others .... Petitioners
Vs.
Dharamsala Bani Lodhi Trust and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. R. N. Moudgil, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. R. S. Manhas, Advocate
for respondents no.1 and 2.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Plaintiffs Raghbir Singh etc. have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC) assailing order dated 12.05.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, thereby dismissing application under Section 92 CPC for leave of the Court to institute suit relating to respondent no.1 Trust i.e. Dharamsala Bani Lodhi Trust (in short - the Trust).
The petitioners alleged that the Trust was created vide registered deed dated 04.10.1991 and it took charge of the property and C. R. No. 5470 of 2010 2 building belonging to the villagers including forefathers of the plaintiffs, but the trustees have indulged in acts of commission and omission detrimental to the trust property. Accordingly, petitioners sought directions for rectification of the same and for just and proper administration of the trust property and removal of trustees.
Respondents contested the application. It was pleaded that the Trust was formed on 11.04.1991, but trust deed was registered on 04.10.1991. The building was constructed by the Trust. Construction of building started on 12.12.1991 and completed on 15.11.1994. It was denied that forefathers of plaintiffs had any right, title or interest in the suit property. Trustees have done good work in the interest of the Trust and its property. They have created source of income of the Trust. Land of the Trust is yielding two crops per year, whereas earlier it yielded only one crop per year. Plaintiffs are in the habit of filing false suits to cause loss to the Trust and harass the respondents and other trustees. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide impugned order dated 12.05.2010, dismissed the petitioners' application under Section 92 CPC. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that in the interest of the C. R. No. 5470 of 2010 3 Trust and its property, it is desirable to grant leave to the petitioners under Section 92 CPC to file suit for proper administration of the Trust and its property. It was contended that present trustees have committed various acts of omission and commission, as detailed in the plaint Annexure P-1.
On the other hand, counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 contended that petitioners themselves have been acting adverse to the interest of the Trust. It was pointed out that petitioners no.1 and 2, along with one Sawan Singh, had earlier filed a suit alleging that the trust deed dated 04.10.1991 is illegal and null and void. They also sought revocation of the said trust deed and also sought relief of possession of the trust properties. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.1999. First appeal in that case was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.04.2006. It was accordingly contended that petitioners have been rightly denied leave of the Court under Section 92 CPC to file suit regarding the Trust and its properties.
I have carefully considered the rival contentions.
In the previous suit filed by petitioners no.1 and 2 along with Sawan Singh, they claimed the trust property to be their individual property and also sought possession thereof and also sought declaration that trust deed itself is illegal and null and void, and therefore, also claimed revocation of the trust deed. When they failed in their said attempt in the trial court as well as first appeal, soon thereafter they filed the instant C. R. No. 5470 of 2010 4 application under Section 92 CPC along with plaint. It is thus manifest that petitioners are not well-wishers of the Trust. They have no interest in furtherance of the aims and objectives of the Trust or in proper administration of the Trust and its properties. On the other hand, it is manifest that the petitioners, under the garb of filing suit by taking leave under Section 92 CPC, want to grab the property of the Trust. Earlier, petitioners no.1 and 2 along with one Sawan Singh, claimed the trust property to be of their own property and even sought revocation of the trust deed itself. When they failed in their said attempt, they came out with the instant litigation. Since the earlier suit was filed by petitioners no.1 and 2 along with Sawan Singh to the detriment of the Trust, the petitioners cannot be granted leave under Section 92 CPC to file suit for proper administration of the Trust and its property. Leave under Section 92 CPC has been rightly declined to the petitioners vide impugned order of the trial court. There is no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
March 28, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE