Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lekhraj Thakurdas Pagarani vs Registrar Of Public Trusts Indore on 5 December, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35712
1 WP-37407-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37407 of 2025
LEKHRAJ THAKURDAS PAGARANI AND OTHERS
Versus
REGISTRAR OF PUBLIC TRUSTS INDORE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhimanyu Mahajan, Shri Asawari Sodhi, Shri Amritananda
Chakravorty and Shri Piyush Goyal,, Advocates for the petitioners.
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, Senior Advocate with Shri Mudit
Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent.
Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Registrar, Public Trust whereby the application under Section 151 of the CPC preferred by them for rejection of the application under Section 26 of Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter "the Act, 1951") has been rejected. The petitioners have also challenged the order whereby the application of petitioner No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for striking out his name Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/8/2025 6:21:27 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35712 2 WP-37407-2025 from the array of parties has been rejected.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 has filed an application under Section 26 of the Act, 1951 before the Registrar Public Trust for grant of reliefs as mentioned therein and also for taking appropriate action to issue necessary directions and provide report to the District Court. In application, it has been stated that Choithram Charitable Trust (CCT) is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Act, 1951. Respondent No. 2 is the working Trustee of the Trust. The complaint is against the Trustees of CCT as regards misconduct, mismanagement, breach of trust and misappropriation intellectual property misappropriation. The facts and issues as stated in the application have narrated the mismanagement, misconduct, breach of trust and financial misappropriation by the Trustees with a prayer as aforesaid.
4. Upon service of notice upon them, application under Section 151 of the CPC was preferred by the petitioners for rejection of the application under Section 26 of the Act, 1951 raising a ground that the application preferred by respondent No. 2 cannot be accepted. He has made avernments as regards the Trust deed of Choithram International Foundation (CIF) which is registered at Jersy and its interpretation can be done only by the Court at Jersy. The Registrar hence does not have any authority to interpret the said deed since CIF is not amenable to the provisions of the Act, 1951. It was also submitted that a working Trustee cannot file an application under Section 26 of the Act 1951. The application was contested by respondent No.2 and has been rejected by the impugned order by holding that the Registrar can very Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/8/2025 6:21:27 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35712 3 WP-37407-2025 well look into the complaint of the CCT.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under Section 26 of the Act, 1951, a working Trustee is not entitled to make an application since thereunder direction is first required to be issued to him only. The provision is hence couched in a form which is against the working Trustee itself hence he has no authority to make an application thereunder. It is further submitted that the Registrar Public Trust does not have any jurisdiction to interpret the trust deed of CIF which is registered in Jersy hence the interpretation can be made only by the Court at Jersy. The proceedings in respect of CIF cannot be initiated and continued with under the Act, 1951. Since the issue involves interpretation of trust deed of CIF the adjudication of Section 26 of hte Act, 1951 deserves to be rejected.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that presently the Trust deed of CIF is not required to be interpreted. Only the allegations as have been levelled in the application preferred by respondent No. 2 are required to be considered and are to be taken as correct. The allegation is as regards misappropriation of the funds of CCT and its financial mismanagement which can certainly be looked into by the Registrar. It is also submitted that there is no embargo under Section 26 of the Act, 1951 for the working Trustee to make an application before the Registrar. It is hence submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. The stage of the present proceedings are that an application under Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/8/2025 6:21:27 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35712 4 WP-37407-2025 Section 151 of the CPC filed by petitioners for rejection of the application under Section 26 of the Act, 1951 filed by respondent No.1 is being considered. The said application is in fact an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC which is preferred for rejection of a claim. It is under this very provision that application was preferred by the petitioners though the same was labelled to be an application under Section 151 of CPC. It is well settled that mere wrong labeling of an application would not make any difference and it is the prayer made therein which is to be considered. Since the prayer in the application was for rejection of the application under Section 26 of the Act, 1951, the application is treated to be an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
9. It is well settled that while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC only the avernments as made in the claim and the documents filed along with it which can be taken into consideration. The defence raised by the other side and the documents filed by them cannot be looked into. Moreover, the avernments as have been made in the claim for the present are to be taken to be true and on the basis of the same, it is required to be considered whether any ground for rejection of the claim is made out. The avernments which have hence been made by respondent No. 2 in his application dated 07.11.2024 have to be presently taken to be true at their face value.
10. In the application it has been stated by respondent No. 2 that CCT is a beneficiary to the extent of 25% in the income and assets of CIF. CCT is a bona fide beneficiary of income and assets of CIF. The petitioners are Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/8/2025 6:21:27 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35712 5 WP-37407-2025 controlling and managing assets belonging to CCT outside India. They have been deliberately acting against Trust in India and have virtually misappropriated assets estimated to be Twenty One Thousand Crore. They have declined to provide information about the details of the income and assets belonging to CCT. They have misappropriated the assets of CCT by transferring the intellectual property into a oversized private entity. For appreciation of the avernments, it would be appropriate to reproduce para 1.0 of the application which is as under:-
1.0 Facts and Issues:
" (i) Choithram Charitable Trust (CCT) is a beneficiary to the extent of 25% in the income and assets of Choithram International Foundation (CIF) as per the CIF Trust Deed.
(ii) CIF is a trust established for public charitable purposes.
According to settled trust law, the beneficiary is the rightful owner of the trust, its income, and its assets.
(iii) Choithram Charitable trust is a bonafide beneficiary of Income and assets of CIF. This fact is also recorded in the judgement of the honorable privy council where it is clearly mentioned that CIF has only 4 beneficiaries which can't be changed without the approval of the settlor.
(iv) CIF is worth US$ 10bilion equivalent of Indian Rupees 85000 Crores. CCT's rightful share is 21250 Crores.
(v) The three individuals, namely Lekhraj Pagarani, Kishore Pagarani, and Ramesh Thanwani, serve as trustees of both CCT in India and CIF in Jersey and UK while also holding directorship positions at T Choithram & Sons BVI, the company in which the majority of shares are held by CIF. In other words, the impugned trustees are controlling and managing assets belonging to CCT outside India. (write about disputed trustees).
(vi) The impugned trustees have been deliberately acting against the trust in India and have virtually misappropriated assets estimated to be Twenty-One Thousand crores.
(vii) The impugned trustees have formally declined even to provide Information about the detail of the income and assets belonging to CCT which is a gross failure on their part to protect the properties of the Indian Trust in which their trustees and deliberately acting against the interest of the trust.
(viii)) The impugned trustees have also misappropriated the Indian assets of CCT by transferring the intellectual property i.e. patent of the name "Choithram" into a overseas private entity controlled by them. It is a case of misappropriation of trust property by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/8/2025 6:21:27 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35712 6 WP-37407-2025 trustees. The detail of such illegal transfer and pending applications before Patent Authorities as provided in Annexure-2."
11. From a perusal of the avernments as made in the application, it is evident that various allegations have been levelled by respondent No. 2 as regards the mismanagement, financial misappropriation and misconduct on behalf of petitioners and prima facie give/rise to a cause to action to him to maintain the application. The veracity and correctness of the allegations are not required to be assessed at the present stage since they would be a matter of consideration at the time of determination of the application under Section 26 on merits. Presently, it only has to be seen whether the avernments as made in the application give rise to cause of action to respondent No. 2 to maintain the application. The avernments certainly disclose that there are allegations in respect of the acts of the petitioners on the basis of which the application is certainly maintainable and cannot be rejected.
12. Though, the learned counsel for the parties have raised contention as regards the authority of the Registrar as well as of this Court to interpret the Trust deed of CIF but in my opinion the same is not required to be gone into at the present stage since the same would be required to be considered at the stage of final determination. Presently, it is seen that respondent No. 2 has stated that CCT is a beneficiary to the extent of 25% in the income and assets of CIF. Whether it is correct or not would be a matter to be determined upon merits. It is at that stage itself that the Registrar would be able to decide if and to what extent he can look into, appreciate or interpret the Trust deed of CIF..
13. Section 26 of the Act, 1951 is as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/8/2025 6:21:27 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35712 7 WP-37407-2025
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 administration 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.
14. A perusal of the aforesaid provision unmistakably demonstrate that application can be preferred by any person interested in the Public Trust. It does not state that the application can be made by only certain category of person and not by any specific person. A person interested would certainly include a working Trustee also since he would certainly have an interest in the Public Trust. There is no exclusion clause in the Section to debar the working Trustee from making an application. Though, before making of an application to the Court by the Registrar an opportunity to be given to the working Trustee to be heard and directing him to apply to the Court for directions but only for that reason it would not mean that the working Trustee cannot himself make an application in case he alleges any mismanagement or misappropriation by the other Trustees of the Trust. He can certainly do so and if the contingencies as stated in sub-Section (1) are found to have been made out then the Registrar would direct him to apply to the Court for directions but only for that reason it cannot mean that he himself cannot make an application under Section 26 of the Act. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/8/2025 6:21:27 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:35712 8 WP-37407-2025 contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision of Section 26 of the Act is against a working Trustee is not acceptable and it is held that a working Trustee also has the authority to make an application under Section 26 of the Act, 1951 before the Registrar.
15. The application preferred by respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 2 does disclose a cause of action and the same has not been shown to be barred by any law much less on the grounds as have been raised by the petitioners at the present stage. The application under Section 151 of CPC has hence rightly been rejected by respondent No. 1.
16. Admittedly petitioner No. 1 is also a Trustee of CCT hence he cannot claim his deletion from the array of parties only for the reason that he is not a Trustee in the CIF as per CIF Trust deed. The main application is in respect of CCT and not CIF hence respondent No. 1 has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC preferred by petitioner No. 4.
17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any error having been committed by respondent No. 1 in passing the impugned order which is accordingly affirmed as a result of which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE VD Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA DUBEY Signing time: 12/8/2025 6:21:27 PM