Delhi District Court
District Judge09 vs Kailash Satyarthi on 6 October, 2021
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE09, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
MAIN SUIT
CS No. 18459/16
1 Sheotaj Singh
2 Prabhat Pant
3 Rajesh Tyagi
4 Khube Ram (transposed as performa defendant)
All Trustees of Mukti Partishthan
5 Mukti Pratishthan Trust
To be served through the Registered Office
of Mukti Pratishthan,
7 Jantar Mantar Road,
Parliament Street, New Delhi. ....Plaintiffs
versus
1 Kailash Satyarthi
2 Sumedha Kailash
Both Residents of
24C, MIG Flats,
Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi
3 Vithal Rao,
206, Laxmi Apartments
Nalgonda Chowk, Malkapet,
Hyderabad; Andhra Pradesh. ...... Defendants
CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi
Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh
2
COUNTERCLAIM
CS No. 12910/16
1 Kailash Satyarthi
2 Smt. Sumedha Kailash
Both Residents of
73, Aravali Apartments,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
Defendants/Counter claimants
Versus
1 Sheotaj Singh
2 Prabhat Pant
3 Rajesh Tyagi
4 Khube Ram
All Trustees of Mukti Partishthan
5 Mukti Pratishthan Trust
To be served through the Registered Office
of Mukti Pratishthan,
7 Jantar Mantar Road,
Parliament Street, New Delhi.
6 Vithal Rao,
206, Laxmi Apartments
Nalgonda Chowk, Malkapet,
Hyderabad; Andhra Pradesh.
(Performa defendant/noncounterclaimant)
....Plaintiffs/Noncounter claimant
CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi
Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh
3
Date of institution : 16.01.1997
Date of institution (CC) : 03.10.2015
Date when file received : 04.02.2021
Date when order reserved : 18.09.2021
Date of Order : 06.10.2021
JUDGMENT
1 By this joint judgment I will dispose of suit u/sec.92 CPC (leave granted vide order dated 17.01.1997) filed by the plaintiffs including plaintiff no. 5 i.e. Mukti Pratisthan Trust (hereinafter referred as to plaintiff no. 5 or "Trust") AND The counter claim filed by defendants no. 1 and 2.
2 The brief facts of the case as per plaintiffs are that there is a Charitable Trust namely Mukti Pratisthan Trust (plaintiff no. 5). The object and the purpose of the Trust is to establish, run and maintain Charitable Institutions, to give relief to sick, poor and disabled persons and organize other economic, social, cultural, educational and health centres to achieve the aforesaid objectives. For this purpose, the plaintiff no. 5 used to get CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 4 grants, donations, subscriptions and contributions. The main practical activity of the Trust was to run vocational training for "Bonded Labours" in the village Ibrahimpur in Delhi in the name of "Mukti Ashram". Defendants no. 1 to 3 were the trustees of plaintiff no. 5. Thereafter, plaintiff no. 1 to 4 were also inducted as trustees of plaintiff no. 5.
After the introduction of plaintiffs no. 1 to 4 as trustees, they found that plaintiff no. 1 and 2 (who are also related to each other as husband and wife respectively) were embezzling the huge amount of "Trust's Money" by maintaining false accounts and also alienated the properties of "Mukti Ashram".
An enquiry was conducted by plaintiff no. 1 and found that major part of the funds received by the "Trust" were utilized by defendants no. 1 and 2 on foreign tours or other luxuries. They also falsified the accounts. The substantial rights of "Trust" was transferred to another trust i.e. "Association for Voluntary Action (AVA)" in which defendants no. 1 and 2 were also trustees. Defendant no. 1 secretly entered into an agreement with a foreign based CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 5 funding organization Pan Asian Cooperation Society (PACS) on detrimental terms and conditions to the "Trust". Defendant no. 1 also entered into an agreement with office bearers of South Asian Coalition on Child Servitude (SACCS) and transferred funds and assets to SACCS. Thus defendants were entering into agreements with different entities to the prejudice of the main "Trust". It was also found that defendant is also a trustee in a Trust i.e. Save the Childhood Foundation and declared the "Mukti Ashram" as the place of office of this Trust. So, from the enquiry it was found that defendant no. 1 had acted prejudicially to the interest of "Trust" by embezzling the amount of the "Trust". It was also found that defendant no. 1 has purchased property i.e. Flat no. 74, Aravali Apartments, Alakhnanda, Delhi by using "Trust's Fund" and converted to its own use, property no. 24C, MIG Sheikh Sarai, Delhi. It was also found that defendants were entering or filing collusive litigations against the interest of plaintiff no. 5 or the "Trust".
So, this suit was filed with prayers that CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 6 defendants no. 1 to 3 be removed as Trustees from the Board of Trust, to direct the account and enquiries of the "Trust" and to settle a scheme for management of the "Trust".
3 In the written statement filed on behalf of defendants no. 1 and 2, it is submitted that plaintiffs no. 1 to 4 are no more the trustees of plaintiff no. 5 or "Trust". So, this suit is not maintainable u/sec.92 CPC.
On reply on merits, it is stated that plaintiff no. 5 was constituted as "Trust" on 08.11.1992. At present (on the date of filing of the written statement), it has Five Trustees i.e. defendant no. 1 to 3, Sh. R. L. Tiwari and Sh. Rajender Tyagi. It was denied that plaintiff no. 5 received funds of millions of rupees. Plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3 are having political affiliation with different political parties and these plaintiffs are acting in collusion and on behalf of their mentor Swami Agnivesh, a political figure, who was an Arya Samaj leader. The purpose is to grab the funds and properties of plaintiff no. 5. It is stated that the land of the "Mukti Ashram" were purchased in the year 1990 by CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 7 local donations and not from the funds of the "Trust". The main purpose was for the rehabilitation of free bonded labours and child labours. It is stated that the "Mukti Ashram" was associated with Bandhua Mukti Morcha. (BMM). Earlier BMM was headed by Swami Agnivesh and defendant no. 1 with a large number of social workers. Defendant no. 1 was also deeply involved with the affairs of doing social work in the field of freeing bonded labours and child labours along with Swami Agnivesh. However, Swami Agnivesh diverted his interest , concern and time to fulfill his political ambition. But defendant no. 1 kept his activities and interest towards social cause of freeing bonded labours and child labours.
It was denied that there was any embezzlement of money or falsification of accounts. It
was denied that any property of "Trust" was diverted to any other organization. It is further submitted that Swami Agnivesh founded a political party "Arya Sabha" and was trying to make 7, Jantar Mantar Road Office, New Delhi as its address. Due to this reason, the persons/organizations CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 8 which were donating money to the "Trust" stopped funding the "Trust" and in these circumstances some arrangements (as mentioned in paragraph 10 (III & IV) of the written statement) were done for keeping the "Trust" alive and running. It was denied that any collusive suit was ever filed.
In the additional claim/plea, it is submitted that "Trust" property situated at 7, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi is illegally withheld by plaintiffs along with some other properties and are misused by political persons/political parties. It was prayed that plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3 be directed to deliver the movable and immovable "Trust" property in their possession.
In the additional written statement (filed vide order dated 18.03.1997), it is submitted that PACS has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against "Trust". AVA had also filed a suit for injunction against the "Trust" but defendant no. 1, being member of AVA, persuaded other members for not contesting the case and thus this case was dismissed in default on CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 9 17.05.1996.
4 A counter claim was also separately registered on 03.10.2015 which was filed on behalf of defendant Kailash Satyarthi and Sumedha Kailash. It is submitted that property no. 7, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi is the property of "Trust" and being misused by plaintiffs. Plaintiff no. 1 is serving the interest of another registered society i.e. Bandhua Mukti Morcha which was allowed to have its office at 7, Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. The plaintiffs are trying to usurp the property of the "Trust" at Behalpa, District Gurgaon, Haryana. It is prayed that plaintiff Sheo Taj Singh, Prabhat Pant and Rajesh Tyagi be directed to deliver the possession of the "Trust" property as mentioned in Annexure1.
5 In the replication plaintiffs reiterated and reaffirmed the facts of the plaint and denied those of written statement and counter claim.
6 In the written statement to the counter claim CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 10 dated 22.07.2016 plaintiffs denied the facts of the counter claim. It is admitted that plaintiff no. 1 has put some huts at the land at Behalpa, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is further admitted that a part/portion of property no. 7 Jantar Mantar is also in possession of Bandhua Mukti Morcha.
7 In the replication (dated 03.09.2016), filed by defendants no. 1 and 2 to the written statement of their counter claim, they reiterated and reaffirmed the facts of the counter claim and denied those of written statement of plaintiffs to the counter claim.
8 Defendant no. 3 was proceeded exparte on 14.01.2002. Plaintiff no. 1 died on 28.04.2018. Plaintiff no. 4 Khube Ram filed an application on 17.03.2021 to withdraw the suit and gave statement to that effect. However, he was transposed as proforma defendant no.
4. 9 On 03.10.2015 from the pleadings and documents on record (of main suit and counter claim) following issues were framed: CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 11
1. Which of the parties is in possession of the records of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust and for which period? (Onus on parties).
2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is collusive suit which has been malafidely filed at the behest of Swami Agnivesh for purposes of misusing the assets of Mukti Pratishthan Trust? If yes, its effect. (OPD)
3. Whether the plaintiffs no. 1 to 4 were the trustees of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust as on the date of filing of the present suit and they have no locusstandi to file the present suit u/sec.92 CPC? (OPP)
4. Whether the defendants have misappropriated the Trust properties or transferred substantial interest in the Trust in favour of Association for Voluntary Action (AVA) or to South Asia Coalition on Child Servitude (SAACS)? OPP.
5. Whether the accounts of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust have not been maintained in lawful manner and the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of rendition of accounts and inquiries of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust? OPP.
6. Whether the defendants have entered into any secret agreement with Pan Asian Cooperative Society (PACS) detrimental to the interest of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust? OPP
7. Whether the defendants have sold any assets of the trust or tampered or have acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust? If yes, its effect. OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to directions for settling a scheme for the management of Mukti Pratishtan Trust as asked for in the plaint? OPP
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to directions for CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 12 removal of the defendants as trustees from the board of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust as asked for the in the plaint. OPP.
10. Whether the counter claim filed by the defendants has not been valued by the defendants for the purposes of the Court Fees? OPP.
11. Whether Swami Agnivesh is a necessary party in the counter claim filed by the defendants in view of the additional claims/pleas of the defendants no. 1 and 2 in para 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the counter claim? If yes, its effect. (Onus upon the parties).
12. Whether the defendants are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction i.e. directions to the plaintiffs to deliver to the defendants/trustees the possession of the trust properties both movable and immovable including property bearing No. 7, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi; land measuring three and a half acre at village Bahalpa, Near Damdama Lake, Gurgaon and other properties as mentioned in annexure1? OPD.
13. Relief?
10 Some of the important court proceedings are as follows:
(i) On 11.04.1997 vide detailed order a Receiver was appointed.
(ii) One intervener namely Suman sought impleadment by filing an application u/o.1 rule 10 CPC. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2010.
(iii) Right of plaintiff to lead plaintiff evidence was closed on 13.05.2019 without leading any witness.
CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 13
(iv) By submissions of defendants no. 1 and 2 that they do not want to lead evidence, defendant's evidence was closed on 23.03.2020.
11 Final arguments were concluded on 18.09.2021.
12 I have gone through the pleadings of the case, counter claim, documents/material on record and submissions forwarded by respective counsels.
13 My issue wise opinion is as follows: ISSUE NO. 1 Which of the parties is in possession of the records of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust and for which period? (Onus on parties).
14 The onus to prove this issue was on both the parties. During the course of the arguments, both the parties were leveling allegations against the each other that opposite party was having the records. Even from the report of Ld. Receiver, she was not provided the complete documents/records when she went to the locations of the Trust. Even the plaintiff met her and denied access to the CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 14 documents. No evidence is led by any party in this regard. So, in these circumstances, there is no established fact, on record, to state that as to which party is having possession of the documents pertaining to "Trust".
So, this issue is decided in these terms.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is collusive suit which has been malafidely filed at the behest of Swami Agnivesh for purposes of misusing the assets of Mukti Pratishthan Trust? If yes, its effect. (OPD) 15 The onus to prove this issue was on defendants. In the written statement as well as in the counter claim defendants no. 1 and 2 have alleged that this suit has been filed malafidely at the directions of one Mr. Swami Agnivesh. No evidence in this regard led by defendant. So this fact remained unproved. So, this issue is decided in terms that defendants had not proved this issue.
ISSUE NO. 3Whether the plaintiffs no. 1 to 4 were the trustees of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust as on the date of filing of the present suit and they have no locusstandi to file the present suit u/sec.92 CPC? (OPP) CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 15 16 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. No evidence led in this regard. So, this fact remained unproved.
ISSUE NO. 4 & 6 ISSUE NO. 4Whether the defendants have misappropriated the Trust properties or transferred substantial interest in the Trust in favour of Association for Voluntary Action (AVA) or to South Asia Coalition on Child Servitude (SAACS)? OPP.
ISSUE NO. 6Whether the defendants have entered into any secret agreement with Pan Asian Cooperative Society (PACS) detrimental to the interest of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust? OPP 17 The onus to prove these issues were upon the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not led any evidence, directly, by producing witness.
However, during the course of final arguments, the plaintiffs have tried to rely on the report of Receiver by stating that there were many financial irregularities in the Management of the "Trust". During final arguments Ld. Counsel for both the parties have discussed/argued the CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 16 facts of that report. However, plaintiff could not establish regarding the gross irregularities which have impinged the working of Trust and hampered its activities towards the achievement of its goal.
18 Plaintiffs has mentioned two properties i.e. Flat no. 74, Aravali Apartments, Alkhnanda and property no. 24C, MIG Shekh Sarai, Delhi. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that flat No. 74, Aravali Apartments, Alkhananda was purchased by using the funds of the "Trust". No evidence is led in this regard. Even, no prima facie facts brought in this regard by the plaintiff. Regarding second property no. 24C, MIG Shekh Sarai, Delhi is concerned, it is stated that this property was donated by some politician to the Trust but converted into own use by the defendants no. 1 and 2. On the other hand, documents were placed on record regarding selling of this property by its owner to defendant no. 2 for Rs.4 lakhs. It is stated by plaintiffs that these documents were forged document. They have relied a forensic report dated 08.12.2019 in this regard.
CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 17 19 No evidence is led by the plaintiffs, to the best of their knowledge, even to prove this fact also. So, there is no established fact whether these are forged documents or not. In the absence of the same, in view of the transfer documents, it appears that the same was a sale transaction with defendant no. 2.
20 So, in these circumstances, plaintiffs could not establish anything on record regarding the aforesaid two immovable properties.
As far as the allegations of the plaintiff regarding AVA are concerned, the same were controverted by the defendant in paragraph 10 (II) of the written statement. None of the parties have led any evidence.
As far as allegations regarding SAACS are concerned, the same were controverted by the defendant in paragraph 10 (IV) of the written statement. None of the parties have led any evidence.
As far as allegations regarding PACS are CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 18 concerned, the same were controverted by the defendant in the additional written statement. None of the parties have led any evidence.
So, in these circumstances, these issues are not proved by plaintiff and thus decided against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 5Whether the accounts of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust have not been maintained in lawful manner and the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of rendition of accounts and inquiries of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust? OPP.
21 The onus to prove this issue was on plaintiff. No evidence is led by plaintiff to prove this issue. Moreover, as per the report of Receiver, both the parties have denied to have documents in their possession. Receiver was not able to obtain all the documents as the persons at the locations of the Trust had not given her complete access to those documents. So, it could not get established that no proper accounts were maintained. So, plaintiff failed to prove the onus upon him. Even court CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 19 could not ascertain this fact from the documents on record. In these circumstances, this issue is decided in these terms.
ISSUE NO. 7Whether the defendants have sold any assets of the trust or tampered or have acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust? If yes, its effect. OPP 22 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. No evidence is led by the plaintiff in this regard. Even there is no reference to this effect in the report of the receiver. So, plaintiffs fail to establish this fact on record. So, this issue is decided in this term against the plaintiffs.
ISSUE NO. 8Whether the plaintiff is entitled to directions for settling a scheme for the management of Mukti Pratishtan Trust as asked for in the plaint? OPP 23 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiffs. Prima facie it was the plaintiff who has to show that the management of the Trust was not conducting its affairs as per the mandate of the Trust and due to that reason a new scheme of management is required. No CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 20 evidence was led in this regard. Even the report of Receiver, in the absence of complete documents, could not throw much light as to whether the Trust was being managed properly or not, on the date of filing of the present case. So, the absence of proved fact of mis management, on the date of present case, I do not think that court can opine about any settling any scheme of management for the running of Trust. So, this issue is decided against the plaintiff in these terms.
ISSUE NO. 9Whether the plaintiff is entitled to directions for removal of the defendants as trustees from the board of the Mukti Pratishthan Trust as asked for the in the plaint. OPP.
24 The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. No evidence was led by the plaintiff in this regard. Even the report of the Receiver do not point anything against the defendants regarding mis management etc., by the defendants. In the absence of the same, there cannot be any direction from the court for removal of any Trustees. So, the issue is decided in these CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 21 terms against the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 10Whether the counter claim filed by the defendants has not been valued by the defendants for the purposes of the Court Fees? OPP.
25 The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. No argument is raised in this regard. However, from the perusal of the counter claim dated 28.05.2016, the valuation of the counter claim is mentioned as Rs.200/ and Rs.20/ for the purposes of court fees. No court fees has been filed. So, on account of nonpayment of court fee, the counter claim is liable to be dismissed. So, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants/counter claimants.
ISSUE NO. 11Whether Swami Agnivesh is a necessary party in the counter claim filed by the defendants in view of the additional claims/pleas of the defendants no. 1 and 2 in para 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the counter claim? If yes, its effect. (Onus upon the parties).
26 The onus to prove this issue was on the parties. Both the parties have argued that the Swami CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 22 Agnivesh is affiliated to the opposite party of the suit. No evidence is led by any of the parties in this regard. In the report of Receiver, there is reference of Swami Agnivesh at 7 Jantar Mantar Road. However, she had also not given any clue about the affiliation of Swami Agnivesh with any of the party to the suit. So, both set of parties failed to discharge the onus. So, this issue is decided in these terms.
ISSUE NO. 12Whether the defendants are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction i.e. directions to the plaintiffs to deliver to the defendants/trustees the possession of the trust properties both movable and immovable including property bearing No. 7, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi; land measuring three and a half acre at village Bahalpa, Near Damdama Lake, Gurgaon and other properties as mentioned in annexure1? OPD.
27 The onus to prove this issue was on defendant. Neither plaintiff had led any evidence in this regard nor the defendant/counter claimants have led any evidence regarding this issue. However, in the written statement to the counter claim, plaintiff no. 1 had stated that he had planted trees and made some huts in the CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 23 property at Village Bahalpa, Near Damdama Lake, Gurgaon, Haryana. But plaintiff no. 1 had stated that he is not claiming any interest over the said land.
So, in these circumstances, when plaintiff no. 1 or other plaintiffs are not claiming any interest over the said land, it can be presumed that it is the land of the Trust. There is no need for giving any direction in this regard.
28 As far as property no. 7, Jantar Mantar Road is concerned, plaintiffs in their written statement to the counter claim had stated that the same is being used as office of Trust along with some other organizations. Plaintiffs have also not raised any controversy about the relation of the Trust with 7 Jantar Mantar. So, in these circumstances, there is no need for any directions in this regard. So, this issue is decided in these terms.
Additional Discussion: 29 From the perusal of the record, it appears that the mandate of the Receiver is still existing. She had CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh 24 already placed on record all the documents etc., of her inspection. So, she is discharged with the announcement of this judgment.
RELIEF 30 On account of my issue wise discussions, the suit and the counter claim are decided in these terms:
(i) The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed.
(ii) The counter claim filed by defendants no.
1 and 2 is dismissed.
(iii) Parties to bear their own costs.
(iv) The management of the Trust is at liberty to get its documents collected by Receiver, from the record, as per procedure.
31 Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
32 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (Rakesh Pandit) on 06.10.2021 Addl. District Judge-09, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi CS No. 18459/16 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi Counterclaim No.12910/16 Kailash Satyarthi Ors Vs. Sheo Taj Singh