Uttarakhand High Court
Agra Diocesan Trust Association vs Anil David And Others on 8 November, 2016
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 73/2016
Agra Diocesan Trust Association,
A company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956
Having its registered office at St. Paul's Church Compound,
4/116-B, Church Road, Civil Lines, Agra
Through Revd. S.K. Singh,
Presbyter Incharge St. James Church, Annfiled,
Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.
.... Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Anil David S/o Sh. Soloman David,
R/o N.H.-1, Devnagar, Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh-250002.
2. James Church, Manager, Dry Oshis of Lucknow
Through its Director Sh. Anil David,
S/o Sh. Soloman David,
R/o N.H.-1, Devnagar, Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh-250002.
3. Sh. Subhash Chand S/o Sh. Nathan Singh,
R/o House No. 69, Ward No. 1, Helimandi,
Tehsil Parodi, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
At present R/o House No. 2917, Block C-1,
Sushant Lok-1, Gurgaon, Haryana.
.... Respondents/Defendants
4. Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association (LDTA),
A company duly registered under the Companies Act,
1913, having its registered office at 6, Sarojini Naidu
Marg, Allahabad
Through its Secretary Sh. Harrison Ram Mall
S/o late Sh. Ram Lal Mall,
Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association,
At 6, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Allahabad.
......Proforma Respondent/Proforma Defendant
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli,
Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3.
With
2
Appeal from Order No. 74/2016
Agra Diocesan Trust Association,
A company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956
Having its registered office at St. Paul's Church Compound,
4/116-B, Church Road, Civil Lines, Agra
Through Revd. S.K. Singh,
Presbyter Incharge St. James Church, Annfiled,
Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.
.... Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Anil David S/o Sh. Soloman David,
R/o N.H.-1, Devnagar, Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh-250002.
2. James Church, Manager, Dry Oshis of Lucknow
Through its Director Sh. Anil David,
S/o Sh. Soloman David,
R/o N.H.-1, Devnagar, Meerut,
Uttar Pradesh-250002.
3. ATS Buildwell Private Limited,
147, Satya Niketan, New Delhi
Through its Director, Sh. Subhash Chand
S/o Sh. Nathan Singh,
R/o House No. 69, Ward No. 1, Helimandi,
Tehsil Parodi, District Gurgaon, Haryana.
.... Respondents/Defendants
4. Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association (LDTA),
A company duly registered under the Companies Act,
1913, having its registered office at 6, Sarojini Naidu
Marg, Allahabad
Through its Secretary Sh. Harrison Ram Mall
S/o late Sh. Ram Lal Mall,
Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association,
At 6, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Allahabad.
......Proforma Respondent/Proforma Defendant
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli,
Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3.
Judgment reserved on : 24.8.2016
Judgment delivered on : 08.11.2016
3
Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Challenge herein is to the judgment and order dated 28.1.2016, rendered by Mr. Mohd. Sultan, Additional District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, whereby he has rejected the two applications of the appellant/plaintiff. One application was moved requesting the Court that the nature of land, in question, having been shown agricultural sold by one Mr. Anil David to defendant no. 3, while in fact it has the church, school buildings, presbyter house, old church, new church under construction, servant quarters, besides nearly 75 mango trees and 225 other kinds of tress and, therefore, it would be desirable to get the map/pictures verified from the spot and in order to do so, the Civil Court Amin should be asked to make a survey on the spot. Another application was with the prayer that the defendant no. 3, who is a big builder running his business in the name of ATS Buildwell Private Limited, having its head office at New Delhi and hailing from Gurgaon, should be injuncted to change the nature of the land. However, the plaintiff could not find favour of the learned Judge and he rejected both the applications giving free hand to the builder to make any kind of change in the nature of property, in question, in any manner as he may like.
2. In the nature, both the suits are identical. The only difference of the varied property which is situated in the same Khata No. 00240 at Mauza Rasulpur, Pargana Pachhwadun, Tehsil Vikasnagar, District Dehradun, but several khasra numbers entailing the different big big areas of land are the subject-matter of two different suits. Suit No. 24/2013 pertains to the total land ad measuring 4.367 hectares, while Suit No. 25/2013 concerns to the total land of 2.668 hectares. Thus, the sum total of the land is 7.035 4 hectares, viz., more than 90 bighas or 17.38 acres equivalent to 84,137.89 square yards or 7,57,241 square feet and such land has now become so dearly significant that though at the outskirts, but it is within the municipal limits of fast growing town Vikasnagar, and this is the reason that both the parties are contesting tooth and nail in order to grab this property for their personal ends. Besides, the controversy which is under adjudication is not only to settle the fate of the property, in question, in both the suits, but it will have the far-reaching ramifications on several other properties situated in different cities of the north India. It has been the cause that even the Court of this level does not feel it safe to say anything decisively at this stage when either of the parties has not availed any opportunity to render their complete evidence and to cross- examine the witnesses of each other on all the scores and documents, which are on the record so far, and without cross-examination of the litigating parties as well as their witnesses, I feel that it is not possible to arrive at the bare truth. However, learned Additional District Judge has ventured which in no manner, whatsoever, is less than final at this preliminary stage, while rendering the judgment, in question. It seems that he was inclined to hear these injunction applications in both the suits, all the same the High Court's order dated 9.5.2013 passed in CLMA No. 4381/2013 was in force, whereby the parties were directed to maintain the status quo at the spot though till decision on injunction application but even so, it would have been increasingly safer to desist from expressing any decisive opinion in the matter and to proceed for the final adjudication of the controversy after rendering both the parties opportunity to adduce their complete evidence including inter se cross-examining of each other. When the 5 orders under appeals are full of so much elaborate disquisitions so that to run in 29 pages, then I feel that nothing remains at the level of the Trial Court to further adjudicate the matter. However, I would like to mention herein below certain necessary facts delving the controversy, sans unnecessary details, and then will pass my orders.
3. It has been admitted that the properties, in question, including several other properties worth trillion crores in Uttar Pradesh, were entrusted by the Church Missionary Trust Association Limited, a company duly incorporated in England, to Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association (hereinafter called as 'LDTA') vide two trust deeds dated 24.12.1952 and 2.7.1954. Though the history of all these properties is still centuries old and it, if required, can be excavated from the time of advent of britishers in India, but it would be quite pre-mature for this Court, too, to go in all these details, and more so for the reason, as stated earlier, that the expression of any opinion of this Court will have the heavy impact upon the several litigations prevailing between both the parties and more prominently in Delhi High Court. Few regular suits, pending adjudication in Delhi High Court, can be mentioned below:
(i) CS (OS) No. 376/99; (ii) CS (OS) No. 1214/2001; (iii) CS (OS) No. 2685/2008; (iv) CS (OS) No. 3419/2015.
4. Besides the above, a regular suit no. 104/2003, titled as Church of India & Another v. Church of North India & Another, was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, which could be transferred to be 6 clubbed together with all above stated suits, already pending adjudication in Delhi High Court, and this could be done by the interference of the Hon'ble Apex Court under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code. Original Suit No. 328/2011, pending adjudication, which was launched by Johnson T. John, Bishop, Diocesan of Lucknow, Church of India claiming himself to be the Director of LDTA. One Original Suit No. 548/2009 is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad seeking declaration of the deed dated 25.10.2008 to be null and void. It was launched by LDTA through a person named Samuel Peter Prakash claiming himself to be Bishop and Chairman of LDTA and showing Mr. Liyakat M. Khan as Secretary thereof.
5. A questionnaire was also served to both the parties of late by this Court in order to seek their assistance as to what happened about those suits, but both the parties are still in the process of finding out what was desired by this Court. Nevertheless, I think it is not appropriate on my part to further unusually prolong my decision, awaiting the reply of the parties.
6. So, it is not disputed that since that time the property was under the management of LDTA, but the bone of contention, as it appears to be, is the registered deed of 25.10.2008 claimingly executed by LDTA in favour of new trustees of Agra Diocesan Trust Association (hereinafter called as ADTA). This deed was written and registered as well on a stamp of Rs. 750/-, and it is claimed that by means of this deed, several properties in western Uttar Pradesh as well as in Uttarakhand were transferred to ADTA so that their management could be done efficiently 7 and effectively to carry out the objectives of the trust. The unfortunate aspect commenced when several persons claiming themselves under the respectable title and adorning the thrown of Bishop of either LDTA or ADTA or the Directors or Managing Directors or Secretaries of either of these two institutions could not resist their greedy dispositions on the properties worth trillions in order to convert the same for their personal use and benefits and earn the massive wealth by means of transferring such properties either through lease or sale deeds and that is the reason that even the ADTA, which is claiming to be the most genuine guardian of all these properties, transferred inter alia the property of such mission situated on Plot No. 9, Nili Kothi Mission Compound, Meerut by way of lease to one Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sahay, and one Mr. Anil David claiming to be the Director of LDTA transferred by way of lease deed the property situated at C-71, Preet Vihar Colony, Nauchandi Ground, Meerut on 27.2.2013 to one Smt. Prabha Rani. This Anil David is a government employee in the Sebication Department, CDS Store, Meerut and it has not been denied that on account of several frauds, he is under trial and facing the prosecution while in detention in Tihar Jail, New Delhi. This Anil David is the root cause of both these litigations between the parties because he, representing himself to be the Director of the LDTA, executed both the sale deeds on dated 8.3.2013 in favour of Mr. Subhash Chandra, Director of ATS Buildwell Private Limited having its headquarters at New Delhi. This so-called resolution of 3-4 Directors, out of many, in favour of him has been the ground to place reliance by the Additional District Judge holding validity of all these sale deeds for the good consideration which, in fact, is so meagre.
87. This is the settled position propounded by the different High Courts and the Apex Court as well that in the corporate affairs, the Court must not hesitate to lift the corporate veil to the extent of piercing the same if warranted in order to ferret out the truth and to find out whether the so-called resolution of the Directors has been passed (if any) in order to defraud and detriment the welfare of the company and to achieve their personal benefits. Unfortunately, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has remained in oblivion towards the real nature of the controversy which has no concern with the benevolent purposes of the public charitable and religious trust, wherefor it is always created, but there was all-around leg pullings of each other and a mad race to become the regulator, controller and champion of all these properties for their personal use among all these persons, and it has been so because probably they could remain wholly unaware regarding the existence of hierarchy of law courts and their superior powers in India.
8. Learned judge of the Trial Court has basically rejected the injunctions application on the premise that yet another Original Suit No. 53/2006 launched by the same plaintiff seeking permanent injunction claiming himself to be the owner of the same property on the strength of same trust deed dated 25.10.2008 (in question again in both the suits), was dismissed on merits, but perhaps it could not be brought to his notice that a First Appeal No. 84/2015, preferred by ADTA, is still pending adjudication in the High Court against that decision and the civil appeal is the continuation of the suit. Further in that suit, the present defendants were nowhere, but it was against one Mr. Rajan 9 Peter Singh who was yet another person of the same category, which I have discussed hereinabove.
9. It is very amazing that so many persons have arisen claiming themselves to be the Bishop/Chairman of the LDTA. So, that, by itself is shrouded with deep apprehensions and doubts that who is the real Bishop. Few of them can be named hereinbelow who do not hesitate even to move the affidavits before the different courts asserting their capacity as such without having the little fear in their minds about their prosecution.
(i) Mr. A.R. Stephen S/o Rawen Stephen, R/o 26 M.G. Road, Allahabad, as is mentioned in the deed dated 25.10.2008.
(ii) Dr. Peter Baldev S/o Nathan Baldev, R/o 6 Sarojini Naidu Marg, Allahabad, who has moved an affidavit before this very Court claiming himself in such capacity and that affidavit was sworn by him in Allahabad on 8.8.2016 and the identity and the capacity of such Peter Baldev has been accepted even by the appellant/plaintiff herein.
(iii) Mr. Samuel Peter Prakash claiming himself to be the Bishop of LDTA along with Liyakat M. Khan as Secretary of LDTA and he is resident of Gurudwara Road, Dehradun, and in such capacity they have brought an Original Suit No. 548/2009 against ADTA, copies whereof have been filed in the present appeal (Annexure No. 12 of the rejoinder).
(iv) Mr. Johnson T. John claiming to be the Bishop.
(vi) Mr. Vijay Mantode, who filed the WPMS No. 1749/2014 and the Review Petition No. 718/2014 and the 10 Special Appeal No. 660/2014 in Uttarakhand High Court claiming himself to be the Bishop of LDTA.
10. So, in this situation, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that many other persons as well might also be claiming the Bishop of LDTA like yet another one Mr. Morris Den who claimed himself the Bishop of LDTA and was arrested for fraud in December 2013 and an FIR dated 29.4.2012 bearing Case Crime No. 148/2013 under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC was registered against him in Police Station Prem Nagar, District Jhansi, because he also started transferring the properties for his personal ends and when he filed the Writ Petition No. 11777/2013 in Allahaband High Court under Article 226 seeking the quashing of F.I.R. and stay arrest, the same was dismissed on merits. This Court had also supplied a questionnaire to both the parties asking them to reveal the ongoing proceedings arisen out of that FIR (if any).
11. Learned Trial Judge has also refused to send the Survey Amin on the spot to verify its real nature on the ground that the court should not indulge in the task of collecting the evidence. I think this notion has been misconstrued by the learned Judge because the all out endeavour of the court should always be to ferret out the truth, even to the extent of taking its own initiative in exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC if at all the collection of such evidence be of the core value to adjudicate the matter, much less when an application has been moved by the party for the purpose.
1112. It is difficult to overlook the pictures/photos of the schools, churches, residential buildings, which have been produced by the appellants to show that such land is no more agricultural in nature now inasmuch as it has come in the municipal limits. So, simply for the reason that the name of ATS Buildwell Private Limited has been recorded in Khasra and Khatauni after the sale deed in their favour, cannot be a ground to place the litigation out of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but such entries made by revenue officials recently cannot be decisive to adjudicate the title and possession obliterating all the details as indicated above.
13. As regards the deed of 25.10.2008, it cannot be lost sight of that such deed was impounded by the concerned authorities on account of being written on much less valued stamp papers of Rs. 750/- only, while it purportedly carries the effect of transfer of several properties worth thousands millions and trillions. How that could have been done? It is not possible to ascertain the truth without calling both the litigating parties along with their witnesses in the dock and to face cross-examination for their every do's and don'ts.
14. It is again to be tested on the anvil of revenue laws like sub section (3), (4)/clause (a), (b) of Section 154 and Section 167 of the ZA Act (as amended under Uttarakhand Amendment Laws) as to how such a vast land could be transferred to an outsider ATS Buildwell Private Limited, nonetheless ceiling of land ad measuring 250 square metre has been introduced in the legislation for such transfer, but the revenue authorities, right from Lekhal to the high-ups, joined their hands to readily agree 12 and made the entries showing such transfers effective in the concerned revenue records. It is to be considered and to be tested in the cross-examination that how the properties worth rupees hundreds of crores could be transferred for the meagre consideration of rupees three crores whereof even government value was not less than rupees twenty crores.
15. I think it is very difficult to answer all that controversy and any hurried decision rather would not do justice to the parties until and unless answer of all these questions and issues are tested from the mouth of the witnesses while to face the cross-examination standing in the dock before the Court.
16. In view of what has been set forth above, I allow both these appeals and set aside the impugned judgments and orders, but at the same time, in order to save further complications and to dispel the apprehensions of repeated transfers or the creation of interest in the property, in question, I prohibit both the parties not to create any third party interest or to change the nature of the disputed property in any manner, whatsoever, and they are directed to maintain the status quo as existing now on the property, in question.
17. Further, I feel that since there is only one Additional District Judge in the outlying court in Vikasnagar, who has passed the impugned judgments and has revealed his clear opinion on the issues and nothing more remains for him to decide, hence, exercising the powers under Section 24 of the CPC, I suo motto transfer both these Original Suits from the Court of Additional 13 District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun to the Court of Mr. Anuj Kumar Sangal, Additional District Judge/Special Judge at District Headquarters Dehradun. In case, Mr. Sangal is transferred in due course and suits still remain pending adjudication, then both these suits shall be transferred to the Court of District Judge, Dehradun for final adjudication and to no other court thereafter.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) Prabodh