Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed against Judgment and Decree dated 05.03.2004 passed by Tenth Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Court, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 05A/2002.

2. Since, the controversy involved in this case lies in narrow campass, therefore, it is not necessary to dwell upon the factual matrix in details. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/appellants for eviction under section 12 (1) (a) (c) & (i) of M.P. Accomodation Control Act. Apart from the other issues one more issue cropped up as to whether the suit is maintainable in absence of registration of the Trust/plaintiff ? The Trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held that since the appellants/plaintiffs is an unregistered public trust, therefore, in view of section 32 of the Public Trust Act, the suit is not maintainable and the trial court is not empowered to hear the case. However, the Trial Court also recorded its findings on other issues. Challenging the judgment & decree passed by the trial court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10051 2 FA-230-2004 appellants that section 32 of the Public Trust Act bars the hearing and decision of the suit. If the Court comes to the conclusion that suit has been filed by an unregistered public trust then it should stay its hand and should direct the plaintiffs to get the Public Trust registered and then to proceed further in accordance with law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants have relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pooranchand vs. Idol, Shri Radhakrishnaji reported in 1978 MPLJ 660. It is further submitted that appellants have filed I.A.No. 1183/2023 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional documents on record and along with this application, the appellants have filed a copy of the order dated 29/06/2018 passed by Registrar Public Trust in case No. 07/2016-17/B-113 (1) to show that the trust has been registered as Public Trust, therefore, it is submitted that this Court should take the said evidence on record and the bar which was contained under section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act has now stood lifted. It is futher submitted that the evidence recorded by the trial court with regard to the other issues regarding grounds for eviction are nullity. Once the trial court had no jurisdiction to here and decide the suit in the absence of the registration of Public Trust, then it should not have dwelled upon the merits of the case.

7. Section 29 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act and section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act are reproduced herein below :-

"Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 , creates a legal bar preventing unregistered public trusts from pursuing litigation. It prohibits courts from hearing or deciding suits filed by trusts required to be registered under the Act, until they comply with registration requirements."

"Section 32 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 , mandates that no suit to enforce a right on behalf of an unregistered public trust can be heard or decided by any court."

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Nandlal (supra) has held as under :-

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:10051 4 FA-230-2004 "20. Section 29 of the Act, which applies to this case, reads as under "Section 29. Bar against suits by unregistered trust (1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public Trust which is required to be registered under this Act but has not been so registered shall be heard or decided in any Court.

(2) The provisions of Sub-section(1) shall apply to claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce a right on behalf of such public Trust

21. Section 29 creates a bar "for hearing and deciding a suit" filed by the public Trust for enforcement of any of their rights, if the said Trust is not registered under the Act. The bar, therefore, applies for "hearing and deciding a suit and not in filing the suit. In other words, suit can be filed by the unregistered Trust but such suit will neither be heard nor decided by the Court unless and until the Trust is registered under the Act. Section 29 is, therefore, operates as stay of proceedings in the suit so long as the Trust does not get itself registered under the Act