Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander Kala vs Lakshmi Dutt And Ors. on 7 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)138PLR742
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 982, 983 and 984 of 1984 as the common question of law and facts have been arisen.
2. The parties to all the three appeals have filed civil suits against one and another under Section 92 read with Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') impleading themselves as plaintiffs and others as defendants or vice versa. The controversy has arisen in respect of a property known as 'Dev Karan Bhawan' situated at Bahadurgarh. The property has a built up portion and some open land attached to it which was acquired and built by one Dev Karan in the year 1918. Dev Karan died issueless and his nephew Bhagwan Chandstarted asserting himself to be the owner of the property. Bhagwan Chand also died leaving behind Savitri his widow and Chander Kala his daughter. The mother and the daughter sold some open land attached to the building which resulted into filing of a suit by the public at large. The matter went upto the Supreme Court and a direction was issued for framing a scheme to administer the property. A copy of the order dated 30.11.1981 passed by the Supreme Court has been placed on record as Ex.P14 which reads as under:-
"Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the parties, however, submit that the parties have no objection for a scheme being prepared by the appropriate authority in accordance with law in proceedings to be initiated by any of them. The authority concerned shall hear all the parties concerned before approving any scheme. This is without prejudice to the objections or any of the parties to the inclusion or non-inclusion of any of them as a trustee."
3. After the aforementioned direction was issued by the Supreme Court, three suits were filed by three set of persons making one or the other as party. It is appropriate to mention that it has already been established in the earlier litigation that property in dispute is meant for the welfare and use of general public and the same did not belong to any individual. Reliance in this regard was placed on resolution Ex.Pl dated 5.8.1917 passed by the Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh which shows that a plot measuring 1 bigha pukhta was allotted to Dev Karan for a consideration of Rs. 200/- on the condition that a Dharamshala and a well for the general public would be built. An agreement in favour of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh was also executed by Dev Karan wherein he undertook that the land allotted to him would be used for public purpose and was not to be used as a personal property.
4. The learned District Judge held that whosoever is appointed as a trustee of the property, the property has to be used for public purpose and income derived from the property was to be used for its maintenance. It was further held that Smt. Chander Kala and her mother started asserting that the property in dispute was their personal property and on that account they were held not entitled to be appointed as trustees. Similar findings have been recorded in respect of Chuni Lai and Manbhari, plaintiff-respondents. However, the other trustees have already been found ineligible to be appointed as trustees of the scheme alleged to have been made by Sh. Lakshmi Dutt marked 'A' and 'B' which was not fit to adopted,
5. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, the learned District Judge framed scheme in para No. 22 of his judgment which reads as under:-
"I frame the following scheme for management of the trust property:-
a) The entire property named 'Dev Karan Bhawan' comprised of the built portion and the open space attached to it having a total area of one bigha pukha (302 sq. yds.) as detailed in site plan Ex. P11 will vest in the Trust known as 'Dev Karan Dharamshala Trust' free from any encumbrance.
b) the aim and object of the trust will be to maintain the Dharamshala known as 'Dev Karan Dharamshala' and a well attached to it. Besides the Dharamshala, a water-hut (Pio) will also be maintained from the income of trust property. The trust property will always be used for the welfare of the general public. The income which may be derived from this trust property will be utilised for maintenance of the Dharamshala and the water-hut.
c) No trustee will acquire any personal interest in the trust property and if he acquires any such interest he will become disqualified to continue as a trustee. In the event of any trustee ceasing to function as such on account to his death, incapacity or resignation etc., the remaining trustees will be competent to appoint another trustee in his place. In the event of any conflict amongst the trustees, the decision of the majority of the trustees will prevail on any matter concern in the trust property including the appointment of a fresh trustee. If there be equal votes on either side of them the decision of the President will prevail.
d) The trustees thus appointed will have full control over the trust property and they will themselves decide from time to time in the meeting of the trustees as to how the property should be managed and run keeping in view the aim of the trust.
e) The trustees will be competent to appoint a secretary and treasurer of the trust. They will also decide amongst themselves as to in whose name the income of the trust will be deposited and who will be competent to operate that account. It will be advisable if the income of the trust property be deposited in some schedule bank in the name of trust. At least two trustees should be authorised to operate the accounts of the trust.
f) No trustees shall have any power to sell, mortgage or alienate in any manner any part of the trust property."
6. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant has argued that the plaintiff-respondents S/Shri Lakshmi Dutt, Umed Singh, Chander Pal, Gopi Ram and Ram Mehar were not entitled to be appointed as trustees for managing the affairs of "Dev Karan Bhawan" and the property attached to the aforementioned Bhawan According to the learned counsel, Chander Kala's son was not suitable and qualified. He has been appointed as trustee as the property of Dev Karan, her father-in-law, has been converted into a trust. The learned counsel further argued that five of the trustees named above are not educated enough to manage the affairs of the trust and merely timber merchants of Kath Mandi, Bahadurgarh. However, no objections have been raised with re- gard to Dr. Tulsi Ram a Professor and Head of English department Maharishi Daya Nand University, Rohtak and Pt. Nand Kishore in addition to the 5 trustees named above.
7. Mr. B. B. Gupta, the learned State counsel has argued that Chander Kala could not have been appointed as a trustee because she started proclaiming that the trust property belongs to her and in fact alienated the trust property by treating it as her personal property. The learned counsel has further argued that the dispute about the status of Chander Kala had been raised and the litigation was decided in their favour upto Supreme Court. The sale deed alienating the property was declared null and void. According to the learned counsel, educational qualifications of those five persons which are selected by the District Judge would lose significance in view of the fact that two highly educated persons one Professor Tulsi Ram and the other Mr. Nand Kishore being an Advocate, were sufficient to watch the interest of the trust. The Learned State counsel has submitted that till date, no complaint has been lodged and the affair of the trust is being run smoothly in the larger public interest.
8. Mr. I.K. Mehta, learned senior counsel, appearing for the plaintiff-respondents has submitted that defendant-appellant Chander Kala, Manbhari, Ram Mehar, respondent No. 9 and Gopi Chand, respondent No. 7 have already expired and their LRs have not been brought on record. According to the learned counsel, it shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal. The learned counsel has pointed out that the trust is running smoothly in accordance with the scheme framed by the District Judge and is serving the general public.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and especially a general agreement between their counsel that no complaint against the working of the scheme has been filed. I am of the considered view that these appeals are liable to be dismissed. The scheme approved by the learned District Judge appears to be working very well and in the larger interest of the general public. Five members of the Trust from the nearby Kath Mandi, although not highly educated have been rightly associated because they can apprise the other members who are highly educated. One of them is an Advocate and the other one is a Professor, Adequate provision has been made even for replacement of those who either died or otherwise resigned.
10. There is no room to accept the argument that the property was personal assets of Dev Karan because the matter had already gone up to the Supreme Court and it has attained finality. No other legal infirmity could be found in the scheme approved by the learned District Judge nor it could be doubted that Sarvshri Lakshmi Dutt, Umed Singh, Chander Pal, Gopi Ram and Ram Mehar were not entitled to be appointed as trustees for managing the affairs of Dev Karan Bhawan and the open land attached to it. Even otherwise, the appellants appears to have lost interest in the appeals as despite the death of Chander Kala, Manbhari, Ram Mehar and Gopi Chand, no application for bringing on record their legal representatives has been filed. Therefore, I am of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by deferring the hearing because learned counsel for the parties have stated that despite the letters written by them no one has turned up to post them with upto date facts. For that reason also, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
For the reasons stated above, these appeals fail and the same are dismissed.