Madhya Pradesh High Court
Scindia Devesthan Registered ... vs Praveen Kumarnigam on 22 September, 2014
1
M.A.No.762/2012
(Scindia Devasthan registered Charitable Trust Vs. Praveen Kumar Nigam and others)
&
M.A.No.884/2012
(Scindia Devasthan registered Charitable Trust Vs. Smt.Vijaya Jagatap and others)
22092014
Shri Chetan Kanango, Advocate for the appellant in both the
appeals.
Shri Harish Dixit, Advocate for the contesting respondent in
both the appeals.
This order shall govern disposal of M.A.No.762/2012 and M.A.No.884/2012 as common and identical question is involved in both the cases, By these two appeal under Order XLIII rule 1 CPC, the appellant common in each of the appeals has challenged the order of remand dated 10/07/2012 and 23/07/2012 passed by X Additional District Judge, Gwalior and VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.16A/2012 & Civil Appeal No.7A/2012 respectively.
The issue involved in both the appeals was as regards amenability of plaintiff/appellant, a registered religious and charitable public trust to the jurisdiction of the Court under the rent control legislation vide notification dated 07/09/1989 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Trusts are exempted from the purview of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The first appellate Court by order of remand required the trial Court to return finding on the issue as to whether the income of the Trust is fully applied to its object and purpose or not, i.e., for religious and 2 M.A.No.762/2012 (Scindia Devasthan registered Charitable Trust Vs. Praveen Kumar Nigam and others) & M.A.No.884/2012 (Scindia Devasthan registered Charitable Trust Vs. Smt.Vijaya Jagatap and others) charitable purpose. Being aggrieved thereby, instant appeals have been preferred. The issue as aforesaid was referred to the Division Bench by formulating a question vide order dated 22/03/2013. Division Bench vide order dated 05/07/2013 had answered the question in paragraphs 31 and 32 of its order, the question and relevant portion of order reads as under:
"Whether in each and every case a registered religious charitable public trust is obliged to prove that it's income is being utilized in religious and charitable purpose of the Trust?"
31....... Thus, in such premises also, by givng any further interpretation to the above mentioned decisions of the Supreme Court the public trust could not be directed to prove in each case that it's received income is being utilized for the object and purpose of the trust.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussions our answer on the question referred is: "that in each and every case a registered religious charitable public trust is obliged to prove that it's income is being utilized in religious and charitable purpose of the Trust". Accordingly, after such answer of the question referred, the Registry is directed to place the matter before the Single Bench for further hearing and adjudication of these two appeals on merits."
The impugned orders by which the cases were remanded to the trial Courts to address on the issue as to whether the income generated by the public trust is fully utilized for its own object and 3 M.A.No.762/2012 (Scindia Devasthan registered Charitable Trust Vs. Praveen Kumar Nigam and others) & M.A.No.884/2012 (Scindia Devasthan registered Charitable Trust Vs. Smt.Vijaya Jagatap and others) purpose pales into insignificance.
Accordingly, the impugned order of remand in each of the appeals is set aside. First appellate Court in each of the appeals is directed to decide the appeal afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law.
Both the appeals stand allowed and disposed of to the extent indicated hereianbove.
(Rohit Arya) Judge b/