Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The present suit was filed on 16.10.2004 for declaration with consequential relief of perpetual injunction. The brief facts of the case as culled out from Mandir Garh Mukteshwar Tonk Gaur Brahaman Trust Vs Smt. Rattan Kaur the plaint are that plaintiff No.1 is a trust which was created by Smt. Jamuna Devi, W/o Late Shri Thakur Dass and the plaintiff No.2 to 6 are the present surviving trustees of the plaintiff No.1 Trust. That Smt. Jamuna Devi had no child and was the registered owner of the properties bearing No. 398, Kucha Bulaki Begum, Dariba Kalan, Delhi-110006 (herein after referred to as 'the suit property') and also at Chotta Bazar, Garh Mukteshwar in U.P. That Smt. Jamuna Devi had died around 1940 leaving behind no legal heirs and the factum of the said properties being given in trust are apparent from the fact that there is a stone slab installed in both the said properties which clearly shows that Smt. Jamuna Devi had categorically mentioned that the said properties cannot be sold or mortgaged and that this declaration is duly mentioned on the said stone slabs existing thereon which is dated 03.09.1938 and the photographs of stone slabs installed in both the said properties are annexed with the plaint. That the Trust was being managed by the trustees that is by the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 along with Shri Bishan Sarup at Delhi and by plaintiffs No.4 to 6 at Garh Mukteshwar, Ghaziabad, U.P. That the aforesaid trustees at the Mandir Garh Mukteshwar, U.P. had been managing the affairs properly and the said Mandir has been maintained and looked after well by them with the aid and assistance of the devotees there but it appears that due to the old age and illness of the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 , Shri Bishan Sarup was alone managing the affairs at Delhi himself and Shri Bishan Sarup took full advantage of the situation and instead of spending the income upon the property No. 398, Kucha Bulaki Begum, Dariba Kalan, Delhi, he had been diverting the funds to other places and that he had even utilized the same for the construction of a mandir in his own property at 224, Gali Kunjas, Dariba Kalan, Delhi and had even made shops in the said property taking advantage of the situation of a mandir having been Mandir Garh Mukteshwar Tonk Gaur Brahaman Trust Vs Smt. Rattan Kaur constructed in the said property. That Shri Bishan Sarup had however, also died in or around December 1987 and that the rent which was being collected by the aforesaid property No. 398, Kucha Bulaki Begum, Dariba Kalan, Delhi by Shri Bishan Sarup was also not collected thereafter as he alone was issuing rent receipts to the tenants and that at present only two tenants are available in the said property i.e defendant No.3 and 4 in the present suit. That defendant No.1 alleges to have purchased the said Trust property from Shri Bishan Sarup who could not have sold the same when he was only a mere trustee of the plaintiff No.1 and was acting on behalf of the trust while collecting the rent and that he had no personal right in the said property which had been donated by Smt. Jamuna Devi for charitable purposes and the income of rent was to be used for construction of some temple or any other good deed as was the last wish and aim of the plaintiff No.1 Trust which was created by Smt. Jamuna Devi by donating her own properties in view of submissions already made above. That D-3 & 4 were paying the rent to Shri Bishan Sarup till September 1987 or so as per the information gathered from them and that thereafter as Shri Bishan Sarup himself had also become ill and was not able to collect the rent himself, so no rent was being collected from D-3& 4 and any receipt thereafter has to be fictitious under the circumstances. That Shri Bishan Sarup had also directed during his illness to the D-3 & 4 to spend the amount on the proper maintenance and upkeep of the tenanted property and the D-3 & 4 allege to have spent more than the rental amount on the maintenance and proper upkeep of this property of the Trust which in any case is in a very dilapidated condition being an old constructed building which has already outlived its life. That neither Shri Bishan Sarup nor any other person could have executed any sale or could have entered into any agreement to sell with Mandir Garh Mukteshwar Tonk Gaur Brahaman Trust Vs Smt. Rattan Kaur regard to the said property No. 398, Kukcha Bulaki Begum Dariba Kalan, Delhi -110006 and that if any sale or will or any agreement was alleged to have been executed by Shri Bishan Sarup, the same could be of no consequence when he himself had no legal status or personal right, title or interest in the said property which was donated by Smt. Jamuna Devi by creating a trust and had even got a stone installed in the said property so that no mischief could have been done by any of the trustees or any person and the name of her husband also remained immortal and that if any mischief is ever contemplated by any trustee the same could be exposed from the said stone slab existing in the said property ever since 1938. That plaintiff had been informed that D-1 had filed an eviction case against the D-3 & 4 and in pursuance of which she had already obtained an order of eviction on 06.09.2001 against D-3. That D-1 or D-2 could not have acquired any right, title or interest in respect of the property bearing No. 398, Kucha Bulaki Begum, Dariba Kalan, Delhi-110006 in view of the said facts and circumstances and the alleged sale of the said property by D-2 in favour of D-1 could not have taken place and any Sale Deed or document if created appears to be manipulated, fabricated and fraudulent and could not be possible under these circumstances. That plaintiffs have made verification from the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi and it appears that a fraud was played by either Shri Bishan Sarup or by Shakuntala Devi/D-2 through a collusive suit filed by them for specific performance and whereby they had been able to obtain a decree in Suit No. 687 of 1986 which was a well- planned conspiracy hatched by them in active connivance with each other and by concealing and suppressing the material facts not only from the said court but also from the other trustees, which fact has recently come to the knowledge of the plaintiffs through the D-3 & 4 who also appear to be hand Mandir Garh Mukteshwar Tonk Gaur Brahaman Trust Vs Smt. Rattan Kaur in glove with the other defendants and have only disclosed about this fact after an order of eviction has been obtained by D-1 against D-3. That though there is no document of title on the basis of which Shri Bishan Sarup could have entered into an Agreement to Sell the property of the Trust in his own favour to enable him to sell the same further and that as such the entire transactions of sale made are fraudulent, fictitious, manipulated, void and of no consequence under the law and in view of a well-planned conspiracy already having been hatched and to protect the property of the Trust and to keep alive the sentiments and wishes of the deceased Smt. Jamuna Devi the plaintiffs have filed the present suit. That D-1 & 2 are also trying to create third party interest in respect of the said property of the trust and various property brokers are approaching the builders to raise illegal and unauthorised construction in the said property which had come to the knowledge of plaintiffs only on 06.10.2004. That in view of a sale deed alleged to have been executed by D-2 in favour of D-1 a cloud has been cast on the title of the Trust property. Hence, the present suit.

23.The burden to prove the present issue is cast on the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Smt. Jamuna Devi was the registered owner of the suit property. That plaintiff No.1 is a trust which was created by Smt. Jamuna Devi and that the plaintiffs No.2 to 6 are the present surviving trustees of the plaintiff No.1 Trust. That Smt. Jamuna Devi had died around 1940 leaving behind no legal heirs and the factum of the said properties being given in trust are apparent from the fact that there is a stone slab installed in suit property which clearly shows that Smt. Jamuna Devi had categorically mentioned that the suit property cannot be sold or mortgaged and that this declaration is duly mentioned on the said stone slab existing thereon which is dated 03.09.1938. It is in light of these averments that plaintiffs have sought the prayer that a decree of declaration be passed declaring the suit property to the Trust property which cannot be sold, mortgaged or charged upon. The whole case of the plaintiffs rest on a stone slab existing in the suit property. PW-2 and PW- 4 have relied on photographs Ex. P1 (colly), which according to plaintiffs are the photographs of the stone slabs installed in properties bearing No. 398, Kucha Bulaki Begum, Dariba Kalan, Delhi- 110006 i.e., the suit property and also at Chotta Bazar, Garh Mukteshwar in U.P. It is pertinent here to mention that a Local Commissioner was appointed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court to report on the existence of the stone slab in the suit property and who had submitted his report along with photographs. Thought the plaintiffs have not relied on the report of the Local Commissioner in their evidence, however, in her cross-examination, DW-1 was shown photographs filed along with the report of the Local Commissioner and the witness has admitted that the photographs pertain to Mandir Garh Mukteshwar Tonk Gaur Brahaman Trust Vs Smt. Rattan Kaur the suit property and the photographs were Ex.DW1/P-3 to Ex.DW1/P-6. DW-1 has further deposed in her cross-examination that the stone slab which is installed in the suit property is existing since 1938. Therefore, the existence of stone slab in the suit property is not denied by defendant no.1. The stone slab in question reads as follows: