Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

-:- 3 -:-

case of the petitioner is that by registered gift deed dated 07.07.2001 (Annexure- P/1) the erstwhile owner Badri Prasad Dubey and Bhagwti Prasad Dubey gifted the land bearing Khasra No.116 area 0.101 hectare, Mauja Jalalabad, Patwari Halka No.17, Ward No.16, Tehsil and District Hoshangabad in favour of the M.P. Kada Manikpuri Jijhotia Brahman Samaj, City Branch Hoshangabad. The gift is followed by delivery of possession. In due course, the said Samaj came to be created as a public trust. On 03.03.2013, a meeting of the said Trust was held, wherein a resolution was passed by the members of the Trust resolving to get the Trust registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Act. In pursuance to such resolution, an application under Section 4 of the Act was preferred by the Working Trustee before the Registrar for registration of the said Trust as a public trust.

-:- 5 -:-

7. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

8. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

9. Before examining the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be convenient to take note of few provisions of the Act.

Section 4 provides that within three months from the date of coming into force of the section, the working trustees of every public trust shall apply to the Registrar having jurisdiction for the registration of the public trust. Sub-section (3) of the Section 4 lays down that the application shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall contain the particulars enumerated in this sub section. Sub- section (5) of Section 4 provides an appeal against the decision made by the Registrar regarding registration of a public trust and it also lays down that the order of the Appellate Authority shall be final. Section 5 enjoins the Registrar to make inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purposes of ascertaining whether the trust is a public trust; whether any property is the property of the trust; the names and addresses of the trustees and mangers and the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust; the amount of gross average annual income and expenditure etc. Section 6 lays down that on completion of the inquiry provided for under Section 5, the Registrar shall record his findings with reasons therefor as to the matters mentioned in the said section. Section 8 lays down that any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property, feeling aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar under Section 6 may, within six months from the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 7, institute a suit in a civil court to have such finding set aside or modified.(see 2003 vol 5 SCC 399 Seth Chand RatanV.Pd.Durga Pd.)

(3) The provisions of section 8 shall apply to any finding under this section as they apply to a finding under section 6."

[Emphasis Supplied]

11. The respondent No.1 in his order dated 03.12.2014 (Annexure-P/8) opined that the respondent No.2 raised an objection in the application filed under Section 9 of the Act regarding inclusion of certain property by the petitioner in their trust, whereas the said property belongs to the respondent No.2. Thus, the respondent No.2 made a request for deleting the description of said entry relating to said property from the statutory register. Learned Registrar opined that the respondent No.2 has not raised any objection regarding registration of petitioner's Trust. The respondent No.2 is aggrieved by inclusion of its property as the Trust's property of the petitioner. Thereafter, the learned Registrar examined the relevant documents and decided to delete the name/description of certain properties from the relevant register. The pivotal question is whether in exercise of power under Section 9 of the Act the respondent No.1 was justified in passing the said order. Section 9 of the Act talks about "change".As per the plain reading pf this section the Working Trustee can within 90 days from the date of occurrence of such change or where any change is desired in any entry, can report in the prescribed manner or propose change to the Registrar. On receipt of such report, the Registrar can conduct necessary inquiry and after due satisfaction, can record the finding with reasons therefor and can amend the entry in the relevant register. A careful reading of Section 9 makes it clear that the whole exercise of "change" can be done on the report of the Working Trustee. Section 9 does not permit the Registrar to entertain any other application from any other person or exercise this power suo-motu. Thus, I find force in the argument of Shri Verma, that the application filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 under Section 9 of the Act was not maintainable. This is trite law that if meaning of statute is plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to it

of Mr. Zargar that fraud vitiates everything and therefore no interference may be made in this petition, cannot be entertained.

15. This Court in the case of Swami Indredevanand (Supra) held that if a Working Trustee or other person is aggrieved by the order of Registrar, he may file civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Section 8 of the Act, in no uncertain terms makes it clear that it is very wide and permits (i) any Working Trustee; (ii) person having interest in the public trust and (iii) any aggrieved person by any finding of the Registrar to institute a suit in the Civil Court to have such finding set aside or modified. Sub-section (1) & (2) of Section 8 makes it clear that the appropriate remedy for the respondent No.2 was to file a civil suit against the findings of the Registrar which were recorded in the relevant register. The Act does not contain any provision which enables the Registrar/quasi judicial authority to review his own order. A Division Bench of this Court in Julious Prasad (Supra) held that in M.P. Public Trust Act and Rules, a quasi judicial authority cannot review its own order unless the power of review is conferred on it by the relevant statute from which he derives jurisdiction. In the case reported in 2012 (3) MPLJ 673, [Prahlad Kushwaha & another vs. Rani Devmati & others], this Court held that against the order passed by the Registrar under the Act, the only remedy to challenge the said order is to file a suit under Section 8 of the Act. The Apex Court in Seth Chand Ratan (Supra) poignantly held as under: