Delhi District Court
Dharmarth Trust Mandir Shri Lakshmi vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 31 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIMAL KUMAR YADAV:
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEII (NORTH): DELHI
CS No. 2/10
1. Dharmarth Trust Mandir Shri Lakshmi
Narainji Maharaj @ Shri Lakshmi Narain
Thakurji Maharaj (Trust)
C/o M/s Jagan Nath Hari Ram (HUF)
191, Katra Nawab, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi6.
Through its Pardhan & Managing Trustees
Shri Anil Kumar Gupta
S/o late Shri Sri Bhagwan Gupta
2. Shri Anil Kumar Gupta
Pardhan & Managing Trustee
S/o late Sh. Sri Bhagwan Gupta
191, Katra Nawab, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi110006.
3. Shri Rajendra Pershad (Trustee)
S/o Sh. Devi Sahai,
188, Katra Nawab, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi110006.
4. Shri Kailash Chander Goyal (Trustee)
S/o Shri Dhani Ram
2A, Jamuna Road, First floor, Civil Lines,
Delhi54.
5. Shri Narender Kumar Gupta (Trustee)
S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dass Gupta
490, Sita Ram Bazar,
Delhi110006. ... Petitioner
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ... Respondent
Date of institution : 08.01.2010
Date of Arguments : 14.05.2012
Date of Decision : 31.05.2012
CS No. 2/10 1
JUDGMENT
A philanthropic and religious soul who was fortunate enough to be endowed with a fortune decided to use the money for socioreligious purposes and a device was found in the shape of creation of a public trust, more than a half a century ago. The inherent idea was to share the fortune with the less fortunate persons of the society and to pay the gratitude to Almighty for all that with which he was blessed with. That is how Lala Jagan Nath executed a registered trust deed dated 02.07.1941 and placed properties bearing no. 472229, Ward no. 6 in Bazar Balli Maran, Delhi alongwith certain other properties at the disposal of the trust so created, so that the maintenance and up keep of the temple/deities of the temple can be done properly in times to come even if he not be around in this ephemeral world. The trustees, who were part of a family, were seemingly not fortunate enough to maintain the legacy and that is how a portion of the property donated by late Lala Jagan Nath was sold in order to maintain the temple and dharamshala etc. in the year 1987 with the approval of the court. After about 30 years, the Trust of Lala Jagannath found itself again at the very same juncture where the trust again moved the court and sought the permission to sell away some more property of the trust inasmuch as the income generated by the properties was far less than the expenses which are being incurred by the trust to maintain the said properties, what to talk about the maintaining the temple and Dharamshala. Against the backdrop of the above facts and circumstances, the court was petitioned u/s 20 of the Indian Trust Act to sell the trust property bearing Municipal No. 4722 to 4729, Ward no. CS No. 2/10 2 6, in Bazar Bali Maran, Delhi.
2. A bit of concise facts, which led to the filing of the present suit, as set up by the plaintiff Trust, are that the the petitioner no.1 is a registered Trust/ Wakf and the petitioner no. 2 to 5 are its trustees. The said Trust is the owner and in possession of property bearing No.51220, Ward No.VIII, situated at Kucha Pati Ram, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi6. Lala Jagan Nath had set up the Trust and executed a registered deed dated 2.7.1941 entrusting the property bearing 4772 to 4729, Ward No.VI, situated at Bazar Ballimaran, Delhi6 alongwith other properties, which are/ were owned by the petitioner Wakf/Trust, for maintenance, upkeep and to look after the affairs of the temple/ deities installed in different portions on the ground floor of the Temple on the ground floor and Dharamshala on the upper floors. The aforesaid property is a huge property constructed on a plot of land admeasuring 400 sq. yds. but now it is in a dilapidated condition, being more than 100 years old. It requires repairs, construction and renovation but being fully occupied by different old tenants. The monthly receivable rent from the said property is very meager from which the said property cannot be maintained. Even otherwise, the income receivable to the petitioner no.1 is on the lower side than the expenditure being incurred towards the collection of rent and payment of taxes, upkeep and maintenance of the said property. The said property cannot be repaired and renovated unless the tenants are evicted. The procedure of eviction is not only long drawn and cumbersome but expensive too, which the Trust and the Trustees found too uphill a task to undertake. Hence, the present petition.
CS No. 2/10 3
3. The respondents could not be served by way of ordinary process, hence they were served by publication in the newspaper 'Navbharat Times'. Despite service, none has responded for the respondent, thereafter they were proceeded exparte.
4. The petitioners were called upon to lead their exparte evidence. The Evidence led by and on behalf of the petitioner through one of its trustees authorized to conduct the proceedings and depose that is Anil Kumar Gupta, who chose to examine himself more than once, is to the effect that the rentals received by the trust from the property in question is far less than the money required to maintain the said property. According to the petitioner the total monthly rental received is to the tune of Rs. 6364/ inasmuch as 2 or 3 tenants are not paying any rent at all and in any case it would have only fetched a paltry sum of Rs. 6962/, which is not enough to maintain the Trust or think otherwise. The Audit report has also been placed on record, which indicates that the expenses are more then the receipts and that is why the present petition has been filed.
5. The petitioner has no answer when confronted with the proposition that the trust would ultimately be neglected and would not be maintained even after the properties sought to be sold, is permitted for the simple reason that a day would come, may be after 2030 years later, by then the income generated by the proceeds of the proposed sale would not be sufficient to maintain the basic activities of the trust i.e. Deity and Dharmshala. The attempt by the trust to wriggle out of present scenario by selling away one of the CS No. 2/10 4 properties, rather the only property except the temple and Dharamshala would only be able to provide a temporary relief and thereafter what will happen to the trust is any body's guess.
6. Then again the court is not supposed to shut it's eyes from the harsh realities of life and cannot apply the law by divorcing it from the factual ground level realities. Invariably all the transactions of the immovable properties, unfortunately, are tainted by the virus of illegal parallel black economy and are almost invariably undervalued. There is, certainly, no guarantee that the proposed transaction of the immovable property would be free from such a taint. Therefore, the permission of sale would neither be truly and completely beneficial for Trust nor for the society except possibly for the trustees, who may get rid of a nonproductive property and likely to gain something from the proposed sale transaction other than the legitimate expenses in view of the above stated facts.
7. The court has been entrusted with the responsibility of looking into the fact as to whether the proposed sale is really required for the benefit of trust or not. This entrustment as any other, is a huge responsibility if not burden and in the scenario or so to say the ground realities are such which indicate that the transaction on the one hand would wipe out the property from the stock coffers of the trust for all times to come and, would not be beneficial for the ailing trust. The trustees are likely to unjustly enriched. This may be in the realm of hypothecation, surmise or conjecture, but cannot be termed entirely unfounded or baseless. So the question thrown up is how to devise a way which may CS No. 2/10 5 provide a healthy longevity to the trust and its objects? How, the decay and almost certain end can be avoided so that the pious soul's cherished wishes can be kept alive? Will it not be possible at all? Is it destined to be doomed, disintegrate and ultimately ruined and wiped out?
8. The other side of the coin is that in case the status quo is permitted to be continued then also the trust would find it difficult to survive and meet the expenses. Thus, in these facts and circumstances, the petition needs to be considered positively and required permission for selling the only trust property needs to be granted. However, to avoid any mixup and in order to enrich the trust to the maximum, the permission is granted to the petitioner to sell the property in question in one go and not in piecemeal that too through a public auction which shall be transparent, just and fair and certainly reserved price shall be not less than the circle rates prescribed for the area and every effort shall be made to secure the highest price keeping in view the actual and factual ground realities/ prices. The amount so received shall needless to say be kept/ invested in the public sector, bank or Govt. securities and proceeds thereafter shall be utilized for the upkeep, maintenance and renovation of the Dharamshala/ temple and for furtherance of aim and objects of the trust. The requisite certificate in this context shall be issued to the petitioner on furnishing personal bond with one surety. The petition stands disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room after the needful.
Announced in open court (VIMAL KUMAR YADAV) on 31.05.2012 Addl. District JudgeII (North)/Delhi CS No. 2/10 6 Delhi CS No. 2/10 7 CS No. 2/10 31.05.2012 Present : None.
Vide separate judgment of the date, the petition stands disposed off.. File be consigned to record room after needful.
(V.K. Yadav) ADJII (North) Delhi.
CS No. 2/10 8