Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lethraj Thakurdas Pagarani vs Registrar Of Public Trusts Indore on 18 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-1- WA-562-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 562 of 2026
LETHRAJ THAKURDAS PAGARANI AND OTHERS
Versus
REGISTRAR OF PUBLIC TRUSTS INDORE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhimanyu Mahajan, Ms. Amritananda Chakravorty, Shri
Piyush Goyal and Shri Asawari Sodhi - Advocates for the appellants / writ
petitioners.
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Amol Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent on caveat.
Shri Pradyumna Kibe - Govt. Advocate for the respondent / State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla The appellants / writ petitioners have filed this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging the order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2316 of 2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants herein was dismissed. The writ petitioner had challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as "MPPTA").
2. Facts of the case, in brevity, are that the aforesaid writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 26.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1 (Sub-Divisional Officer, Rau, Indore), whereby a complaint dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 19-03-2026 18:57:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-2- WA-562-2026 28.08.2024 / 07.11.2024 filed by respondent No.2 under Section 26 of the MPPTA was entertained and respondent No.2 was directed to approach the competent Civil Court under Section 27 of the MPPTA.
3. The appellants and respondent No.2 are trustees of Choithram Charitable Trust, Indore (hereinafter referred as "CCT"), a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of the MPPTA and established by Late Shri Thakurdas Choithram Pagarani (hereinafter "Settlor") by way of a trust deed dated 29.12.1970. The appellants were validly appointed as trustees of CCT during the lifetime of the Settlor between the years 1989 and 1991. Appellant No.4 was appointed on 02.02.1989, while appellant Nos.1 to 3 were appointed on 21.08.1991, with the consent and knowledge of all existing trustees, including respondent No.2, and in accordance with the provisions of the CCT trust deed. In February 1992, the Settlor established Choithram International Foundation, Jersey (hereinafter referred as "CIF"), an international private trust governed by the laws of Jersey, and transferred his entire estate to CIF to be utilized for charitable purposes. appellant Nos.1 to 3 were appointed as trustees of CIF.
4. The CIF trust was constituted on 17.02.1992 under the Jersey Trust Law, 1984. The trust deed of CIF expressly provides that the trust is governed exclusively by the laws of Jersey, and neither the trust nor its assets are situated within the territory of India. Although CCT was named as one of the beneficiaries in the CIF trust deed, the said designation did not confer any vested or absolute right upon CCT. The CIF trust deed grants wide and unfettered discretion to its trustees in relation to the identification of beneficiaries and distribution of funds. The Settlor passed away on 19.03.1992. Thereafter, disputes arose among family members concerning succession and transfer of assets to Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 19-03-2026 18:57:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-3- WA-562-2026 CIF. These disputes were amicably resolved by a Settlement Agreement dated 20.05.2003, which, inter alia, conferred exclusive rights upon CIF and appellant No.2 to use the name "Choithram".
5. Following the settlement, the affairs of CCT continued to be conducted through regular meetings, many of which were held in Dubai and attended by both the appellants and respondent No.2. During this period, respondent No.2 consistently represented that no new trustees had been appointed after the demise of the Settlor. It is pertinent to note that CIF consistently extended financial support to CCT and its institutions. Substantial contributions were made by CIF over the years, including for capital expenditure and public welfare activities such as COVID-19 relief, thereby demonstrating bonafide conduct on part of the appellants. In July 2021, the appellants discovered that respondent No.2 had allegedly made unauthorized and clandestine appointments of his family members as trustees of CCT, including his wife, children, and other relatives, without issuing any notice to or obtaining consent from the appellants, in violation of the CCT trust deed.
6. Aggrieved by the said illegal appointments, the appellants instituted a civil suit being RCSA No.1255/2021 before the learned Additional District Judge, Indore, seeking declaration and permanent injunction against such appointments. The learned Additional District Judge, by order dated 18.11.2021, directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the trust, its properties, and records. The said status quo order was subsequently restored by the Hon'ble High Court and continues to operate. Parallelly, respondent No.1 initiated an inquiry under Section 22 of the MPPTA concerning financial irregularities in the functioning of CCT under the management of respondent No.2, thereby indicating serious concerns regarding mismanagement of the trust.In the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 19-03-2026 18:57:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-4- WA-562-2026 midst of the above disputes, respondent No.2 filed a Complaint dated 28.08.2024 / 07.11.2024 before respondent No.1 under Sections 26 & 27 of the MPPTA, alleging that the appellants, in their capacity as trustees of CIF, had deprived CCT of its alleged share in CIF funds and had committed breach of trust.
7. The appellants filed detailed replies to the said Complaint, specifically contending that:
a) The respondent No.1 lacked jurisdiction over CIF, a foreign trust governed by Jersey law;
b) CCT had no vested right in CIF assets;
c) The CIF trust deed conferred absolute discretion upon its trustees; and
d) The Complaint did not disclose any cause of action under Section 26 MPPTA.
8. The appellants also filed applications challenging the maintainability of the Complaint and seeking deletion of appellant No.4, who had no connection with CIF or the allegations made therein. By order dated 29.08.2025, respondent No.1 dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the High Court by filing W.P. No.37407 of 2025. By order dated 05.12.2025, the learned Single Judge observed that the issues of jurisdiction and correctness of allegations would have to be considered at the stage of deciding the application under Section 26 MPPTA on merits. Despite the aforesaid observations and directions, respondent No.1, by order dated 26.12.2025, proceeded to allow the Complaint and directed respondent No.2 to approach the civil Court under Section 27 of MPPTA, without determining the question of jurisdiction or considering the material documents on record.
9. The said order dated 26.12.2025 was challenged by the appellants by way of W.P. No.2316 of 2026 before the High Court, inter alia, on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, non-application of mind, and failure Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 19-03-2026 18:57:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-5- WA-562-2026 to consider binding documents such as the CIF trust deed and the Settlement Agreement. By the impugned order dated 16.02.2026, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the maintainability of the proceedings under the MPPTA, without adjudicating the jurisdictional objections or appreciating the material on record. The impugned order suffers from patent illegality, perversity, and non-application of mind, as it fails to consider that the dispute pertains to a foreign trust governed by Jersey law and falls outside the scope of the MPPTA. Being aggrieved by the impugned order and the consequential prejudice caused thereby, the appellants have preferred the present Writ Appeal before this Court.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order dated 16.02.2026 is vitiated by patent illegality, perversity, and non-application of mind, as the learned Single Judge has failed to adjudicate the fundamental issue of jurisdiction. The writ petition challenged the order dated 26.12.2025, whereby respondent No.1 entertained a complaint under Section 26 of the MPPTA and directed recourse under Section 27, without first determining maintainability.
11. He further asserted that the complaint is misconceived, as CCT has no vested or enforceable right in CIF assets. The CIF trust deed confers absolute discretion upon its trustees regarding distribution. Any determination of entitlement would require interpretation of the CIF trust deed, which lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of authorities in Jersey and is beyond the scope of MPPTA proceedings. The impugned order is contrary to the earlier order dated 05.12.2025, wherein it was expressly held that jurisdiction and maintainability must be determined at the stage of deciding the application under Section 26 MPPTA. Despite this, respondent No.1 failed to decide jurisdiction and passed Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 19-03-2026 18:57:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-6- WA-562-2026 the order mechanically, which error has been erroneously upheld. The complaint does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 26 MPPTA (akin to Section 92 of CPC), as there is no allegation of mismanagement of CCT property or breach of public trust. The learned Single Judge failed to consider material documents, including the CIF trust deed and Settlement Agreement dated 20.05.2003, which negate the allegations.
12. The respondent No.2 has himself invoked jurisdiction in Jersey on identical issues, thereby acknowledging the appropriate forum. In the absence of jurisdiction and a valid cause of action, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated 16.02.2026 and the order dated 26.12.2025 be quashed and the present Writ Appeal be allowed.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that from the order passed by the Registrar, it is crystal clear that he had considered the allegations in the complaint and material thereto and thereafter recorded his prima facie satisfaction for entertaining an application under Section 26 of the MPPTA. He argued that it cannot be said that the authority has passed the order only on the basis of the order passed by this Court in the earlier round of petition. The order is not in violation or contrary to the said order. Under Section 26 of the MPPTA, authority is under obligation only to see prima facie material and to record satisfaction for entertaining the application. So far as the jurisdiction of the authority was concerned, the appellant himself had got decided the point by way of filing the application under Section 151 CPC which was decided by the authority and thereafter by the Single Bench of this Court in the earlier round of petition in Writ Petition No.37407/2025. He referred Para 11 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier petition. The said order has attained finality Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 19-03-2026 18:57:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-7- WA-562-2026 as it remained unchallenged. He argued that the points which are being canvassed by the counsel for the appellant can be very well agitated before the Court under Section 27 of the MPPTA.
14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to refer certain provisions of the MPPTA enacted to regulate and made better provisions for the administration of public religious and charitable Trust in the State of M.P. Chapter I deals with the its operation and definition. Chapter II provides for registration of public trust. Chapter III is management of the trust property, which clearly provides that for investment of public trust money and previous sanction of registration in the case of sale, etc. of property belonging to the public trust is essential. Chapter IV deals with the audit, Chapter V deals with the control. From Section 22 of the Act deals with the power of registration, Section 23 provides procedure for receipt of the report by the Registrar, Section 24 provides for an appeal, Section 25 deals with the filing of vacancies, Section 26, which is relevant here in the present case deals with the application to the Court for direction. The Section 26 of the MPPTA being relevant is reproduced as under:
26. Application to Court for directions.-(1) If the Registrar on the application of any person interested in the public trust or otherwise is satisfied that-
(a) the original object of the public trust has failed;
(b) the trust property is not being properly managed or administered; or
(c) the direction of the court is necessary for the ad-ministration of the public trust;
he may, after giving the working trustee an opportunity to be heard direct such trustee to apply to court for directions within the time specified by the Registrar.
(2) If the trustee so directed fails to make an application as required, or if there is no trustee of the public trust or if for any other reason, the Registrar considers it expedient to do so, he shall himself make an application to the court.
15. From reading the aforesaid section, it is pellucid that section Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 19-03-2026 18:57:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-8- WA-562-2026 empowers the Registrar to direct the working trustees of a public trust to apply the Court for directions. The Registrar shall do the same on being satisfied by an application made to him or otherwise however, his satisfaction is essential. Any person entrusted to any public trust may make application to the Registrar under Section 26 of the MPPTA stating therein the Courts on which he wants Registrar to take action under sub-section (1). Thus, there are 3 grounds which are mentioned in Clause a to c of sub-section (1) on which the Registrar can record his satisfaction before directing for making an application before the Court.
(a) Where the original objection of the public trust has failed. (b) The trust property is not being properly managed or administered, or (c) The direction of the Court is necessary for administration of the public trust. The sub-section (2) further empowers the Registrar to make an application himself for directions to the Court where there is either no trustees of the public trust or where the trustee fails to make an application as per direction or where any other reason for doing so exist. Thus, the wide powers have been conferred on the Registrar to exercise his power either on an application of any person entrusted or otherwise means even he can pass an order under Section 26 of the MPPTA suo moto if he is satisfied with the grounds mentioned in (a) to (c).
16. Sub-section (2) further makes clear the object of the section that power of the Registrar is not dependent on any application or on action of any person if after passing an order under Section 26(1) of the MPPTA, he finds that the person making an application or there is no trustee of the public trust or for any other reason, consider it expedient to take action for the aforesaid grounds (a) to (c), he shall himself make an application to the Court. Thus the jurisdiction of the Registrar is wide enough to pass an order suo-moto even without there being any Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 19-03-2026 18:57:19 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-9- WA-562-2026 explanation, the only pre-condition is that he has to record its satisfaction of existence of either of the grounds mentioned in 26 (a) to
(c) of the Act.
17. In the present case, thus the question arises for consideration was that whether there was any satisfaction in regard to the grounds mentioned in clause (a) to (c) for direction to make an application.
18. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Registrar, it is evident that the authority has considered the relevant material and recorded satisfaction about the grounds for exercising the power under Section 26 of the Act and afforded opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thus, satisfaction regarding prima facie case for exercising power under Section 26 of the MPPTA was found to be made. No jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice is demonstrated.
19. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has rightly observed that the authority has only recorded its satisfaction for prima facie case and there is no finding on any issue by him. He has rightly observed that parties will have opportunity to raise all the issues before the Court.
20. In view of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the reasoning or the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. The scope of interference in an inter-Court appeal has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others V/s Sri Anjaneya Swami Temply and others, (1996) 3 SCC 52, in which the Apex Court ruled that in an intra-Court appeal the appellate Court is a Court of Correction which corrects its own orders, in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of subordinate court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOURABH YADAV Signing time: 19-03-2026 18:57:19NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7405
-10- WA-562-2026
21. In view of the above, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it is observed that any finding recorded by the learned Single Judge or by us would not influence or prejudice to the submissions to be made by either of the parties before the Civil Court.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 19-03-2026
18:57:19