Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Plaintiffs' suit, apart from other reliefs, was principally for the relief of declaration that the finding dated 29.12.1959 of the Registrar of Public Trusts in case no.1/59-60, holding the trust as private trust and not a public trust, was illegal and void. Such relief principally was claimed presumably in accordance with Section 8 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951. It was alleged in the plaint that despite the recording of the particular finding by the Registrar, in accordance with Section 6 ibid, he had not caused the entries made in the register of trusts in accordance with the finding recorded by him under section 6 ibid, as was enjoined by section 7 ibid. Defendants, who were in possession of the trust properties, had filed the written statement,- challenging, amongst other things, the tenability of the suit on the ground of limitation. The trial Court, after elaborate discussion of the Supreme Court decision reported in A.I.R.1967 S.C.1742 Hassan Nurani vs. Asst. Charity Commr., Nagpur, which was relied on, by both sides, came to hold the view that the suit of the present nature where entries were not made in the register of trusts by the Registrar of Public Trusts, in accordance with Section 7 of the M.P. Public Trust Act, could not attract Section 8 ibid for purposes of limitation and was governed by the general limitation i.e. Indian Limitation Act; and as such, the suit, being thus barred by time, the plaint was rejected in accordance with Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

Order dtd. 21.01.2013 passed in FA 252/1990 "1. Near about 42 years ago, on 4.10.1971, a civil suit for declaration that the order of the Registrar/Collector, Narsinghpur holding that the property in question is a private trust is null and void and in consequence thereof, the order dated 19.12.1971 of the competent authority, under the Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, Narsinghpur declaring the land to be surplus under the said Act be declared null and void, the possession of the suit property be delivered to first plaintiff Shri Deo Laxmi Narayan Ji and a sum of Rs.3,000/- for movable property show in schedule (e) of the plaint be also directed to be paid to the first plaintiff and further that the defendants be directed to submit the accounts and mense profit at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per annum be decreed to be paid in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. The written statement was filed on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 5 and a separate written statement was filed by defendant No.9. Defendants Shankarlal, Ginda and Kadhori (defendants No.11, 12 and 13 respectively) have filed their separate written statements, while defendant No.15 has filed his separate written statement.

3. The learned trial Court examined the witnesses of the plaintiffs and on behalf of defendants, two witnesses Trilok and Hamumant Singh were examined. The Trial court after recording the evidence, decreed the suit holding that the order of the Registrar/Collector, Narsinghpur under case No. 1/Mad B/113(1) year 1959-60 holding that Shri Deo Laxmi Narayan Mandir is a public trust is null and void; it was further decreed that the property mentioned in Schedule-E, which has been sold out by defendants No.1 to 5, that transfer is null and void; the suit was also decreed by holding that the order passed in ceiling case No.122 Mad A/90(B)(3)/year 1974-75, passed by the competent authority Narsinghpur dated 19.12.1975 declaring 12.25 acres of the land of survey No.42 to be surplus land is null and void and the said order is set aside; the defendants were directed to give possession of the suit property to plaintiff No.1, which is mentioned in schedule-E upto 31.08.1990, failing which the plaintiffs shall be free to get the decree executed from all the defendants; defendants No.1 to 5 are directed to submit the accounts of suit property upto 31.08.1990, when it came in the control of Mishrilal, after the death of Jagannath and for the purpose of rendition of accounts, this decree shall be deemed to be a preliminary decree. In case, in the stipulated period, the accounts are not submitted, the plaintiff No.1 shall be free to file an application for obtaining the final decree; the defendants (except defendant No.19) are directed to deposit the mesne profit at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per annum and the defendants are restrained from interfering in the possession of the suit property after the possession is delivered to the plaintiffs.