Punjab-Haryana High Court
Keshwa Nand Chela Sham Dass Mohtmim ... vs Sunder Singh Son Of Gujjar Singh on 2 March, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M)
Date of decision:02.03.2013
Keshwa Nand Chela Sham Dass Mohtmim (Manager) Shri Guru
Granth Sahib, Village Tasauli, Tehsil Rajpura.
...Appellant
versus
Sunder Singh son of Gujjar Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,
Tasoli, and others.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
----
Present: Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate, and
Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate,
with Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate,
for the respondents.
----
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No.
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?No.
----
K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The appeal is against the decree ordering the removal of the defendant from the administration of the properties claimed by the defendant as belonging to a Dera of Udasis, of which the defendant was a Mohtmim. The suit was filed by 4 persons describing themselves as residents of Village Tasauli, Tehsil RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M) -2- Rajpura, on a plea that the properties belonged to Shri Guru Granth Sahib at Tasauli, Tehsil Rajpura that comprised of building and agriculture land measuring 126 bighas 15 biswas in specified khasra numbers. The plaint was rested on a specific plea that the properties belonged to a charitable and religious Trust and the defendant, who had been managing the Trust as Mohtmim, has been guilty of mismanagement. Specific averment was made that he had been spending the income for himself to satisfy his own personal needs and he was not rendering the accounts to any body interested in the management of the Trust. It is also contended that there is a Guru Granth Sahib installed in the building and though it is expected that the building is kept in a state of repairs and religious performances are carried out, the defendant had failed in his duties and had been keeping the place in the most untidy manner. Referring to the extent of mismanagement, the plaintiffs would contend that the defendant had executed a Will in respect of the same property as though it is his own personal property, in favour of his son and grandson, he had mortgaged the property to a Bank for raising some personal loans and he had further encumbered the property by grant of lease for over 99 years. The manner of disposition and the alienation which he had made would betray the mismanagement and malversation of the income accruing to the Trust.
RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M) -3-
2. The defendant has denied the character of the property as belonged to Shri Guru Granth Sahib and would contend that the property does not belong to Gurdwara. The plaintiffs themselves, according to the defendant, do not have any locus standi to file the suit. The defendant would contend, on the other hand, that the property belongs to a Dera Udasi and the defendant is the Mohtmim of the Dera. The defendant would state at the same breath that there is no Trust, as alleged, and the Shri Guru Granth Sahib kept within the Dera, does not make it a Gurdwara. It is the contention in defence that Udasis are a different sect of sadhus and have their own customs as to worship. It is contended in defence that a "bhekh" (governing body of udasi sadhus for running the Dera) manages the Trust and its property and the plaintiffs cannot displace the defendant through the suit instituted.
3. At the trial, the following issues were framed in the suit:
"1. Whether Shri Guru Granth Sahib of Tasauli, Tehsil Rajpura is a Trust for public purposes of charitable and religious nature and land measuring 126 bighas 15 biswas belongs to that trust as claimed in the plaint? OPP.
2. Whether the defendant is managing the property of the said Trust as its Mohtmim? OPP. RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M) -4-
3. Whether the plaintiffs have locus-standi to file the suit? OPP.
4. Whether the defendant is not performing his duties as Mohtmim of the Trust properly and is liable to be removed on that account as alleged in the plaint?
5. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata?"
4. Of these issues, the issue relating to res judicata has no value since the earlier suit was instituted without seeking for leave and was found to be not maintainable. In this case, the plaintiffs have filed the suit as worshippers of Guru Granth Sahib and being residents of the same village are interested in the performance of the Trust connected with the properties attached to Shri Guru Granth Sahib. The character of the property as belonging to a charitable and religious Trust is also not denied as indeed it can be seen from the written statement that the contention is that the property belongs to a Dera which is of a charitable and religious nature. This is the most essential ingredient which has to be fulfilled in order to invoke Section 92 CPC. To maintain an action under Section 92 CPC, the further requirement would be that the persons that approach the Court must have a tangible interest for the administration of the property attached to the public Trust. The plaintiffs' declaration of interest is that they are residents of the same village and they are RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M) -5- worshippers of Shri Guru Granth Sahib. That a Guru Granth Sahib is installed is not itself in dispute. At the trial, the attempt by the defendant that a mere installation of Guru Granth Sahib will not make it a gurdwara. It is not even a relevant issue of whether it is gurdwara or not. If it is a religious and charitable Trust as we have seen above, then the persons declaring themselves as worshippers have sufficient interest to maintain the action. In Bishwanath and another Versus Shri Thakur Radha Ballabhji-AIR 1967 SC 1044, the Supreme Court, while finding that a declaration of property as belonging a public Trust itself may not be competent held that the locus standi of worshippers to file a suit under Section 92 CPC for a religious Trust itself is not barred. The locus standi of the plaintiffs could not also therefore be denied.
5. The first issue of whether the property belonged to Guru Granth Sahib of Tasauli, where Guru Granth Sahib of Tasauli is a Trust for public purposes need not also detain us, for, Guru Granth Sahib is akin to an idol in the manner that the popular concept of Hindu religion admits of and therefore, the property endowed is in the nature of a public Trust. All that would be necessary to distinguish any public Trust from a private Trust is that there is a body of persons in whom there is a vesting and beneficiaries are such bodies of persons, who claimed such benefits as a measure of charity or a religious dispensation. The Court's findings with RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M) -6- reference to the Issue Nos.1, 3 and 5 are, therefore, very easily answered and I do not find that there is any point made out in appeal to dislodge these findings.
6. The entire argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was how the trial Court itself approached the issue involved in the case and the learned counsel would point out that the Court had completely lost a focus and raised a point for adjudication which was alien to Section 92 CPC. The trial Court had in the course of its judgment stated so, which is reproduced as under:-
"13. It would therefore, appear that the vital question for determination is as to whether the land in suit that measures 126 bighas 15 biswas belongs or vest(s) in the 'Trust' known as 'Guru Granth Sahib Tasauli' or is vested in the 'Dera' of Udasis."
7. I have no hesitation to find that this observation of the trial Court is completely erroneous. They are not required to be answered by any of the issues which have been formulated. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendant points out that the judgment could still be supported without making any attempt to find an answer for how the trial Court had made its formulation in paragraph 13, extracted above. He would also argue that this came to be discussed by the trial Court only because the defendant invited such a finding on a plea by him that the property does not belong to RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M) -7- Guru Granth Sahib and that it is vested in the Dera of Udasis. I must point out that the suit under Section 92 CPC cannot settle issues of title between two rival factions of Trust. Section 92 CPC is attracted in all admitted public or religious charities where there is a mismanagement that requires any of the acts to be done which are delineated under Section 92 itself. Clauses (a) to (h) in Section 92 CPC reads as follows:-
"(a) removing any trustee;
(b) appointing a new trustee;
(c) vesting any property in a trustee;
[(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property];
(d) directing accounts and inquires;
(e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;
(f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged;
(g) settling a scheme; or
(h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require."
RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M) -8-In this case there cannot be any scope for an adjudication of whether the property belongs only to the Dera Udasi and not to Guru Granth Sahib and therefore, the administration must vest only with the 'bhekh', namely, the governing body of udasi, and that it not could vest in a registered managing society called as, "Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Village Tasauli, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala." In a case where the person, who is competent to manage is itself an admitted fact, it shall be possible for a Court to direct such a person in the Management but commits gross improprieties to be removed and the property and religious office put in the hands of a person, who is so competent. In this case, there is still a lurking dispute as to who shall be competent to administer if the circumstances justify the removal of the person in management. One thing becomes clear that the person in Management has, by his own admission, proved himself to be ineligible to continue in possession. He has committed every act of mismanagement that a public Trust could be put to. He has indulged in transactions betraying the Trust by treating it his own separate property and making it a subject of bequest through Will; he had mortgaged the property and raised the loans for his own personal needs; he has leased the property for 99 years which was a clear abuse of his authority to take away the property from the reach of persons, who are clamoring for better management of properties; he had maintained no accounts to render RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M) -9- himself liable for appraisal of how he was dealing with the public Trust. All these are not matters requiring elaborate proof but brought through clear admissions made by the defendant himself which have been brought in the judgment of the trial Court.
8. Having found under the relevant issues that the property was a religious and charitable Trust and having further found that the persons, who are instituting the suit, were interested in the proper administration, the Court was justified in directing the removal of the defendant from the Management. In so doing, it considered the fact that there existed a registered Managing Committee registered under the Societies Registration Act. The decree has, therefore, provided that the defendant shall be removed from the properties and put in the hands of the registered Managing Committee. The Court has also further directed that the defendant shall render an account of the income from the property during the period he had been in possession till the delivery of possession. The said direction is also appropriate which will be carried through at the final decree proceedings.
9. Even while affirming the judgment, I would make the issue open of whether the property could be managed only by Udasi sect and the persons to manage the same shall be nominated by the bhekh. The finding already by the trial Court that Udasi sect is not entitled to administer the Trust is vacated, as alien to the scope of RFA No.2549 of 1987 (O&M) - 10 - adjudication in Sector 92 CPC. It will be a subject of an independent adjudication if any person belonging to Udasi sect stakes such a claim. This judgment does not conclude the said dispute. The defendant, however, shall not use this liberty as a bogey to hang-on to possession. The defendant shall vacate the office and surrender possession to the registered Managing Committee in the manner already directed. It is not even necessary for such a Managing Committee to implead itself as a party. It shall be perfectly open for the plaintiffs to recovery possession and hand over the same to the registered Managing Committee of the village referred to in the plaint. The decree is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed, subject however to the observation made above.
10. Before concluding, I must clarify that in the application filed for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the SGPC, I have already allowed it subject to just exceptions. I do not however think the possession must be given to SGPC especially when a rival claim is set up that the property vests is Udasi sect and when I have not concluded the adjudication in that regard. There shall be consequently no relief in favour of SGPC in suit.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02.03.2013 sanjeev