Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of Section 2 define respectively the terms "Prescribed", "Public Trust". "Register", "Registrar", "Trustee" and "Working Trustee". Rules are made under the Act to prescribe "Matters to be dealt with under the Act". A temple, among others, can be subject-matter of an "express or constructive trust for public, religious or charitable purpose", to be so registered under the Act. As per Section 3(2), a "Register" is required to be maintained by the "Registrar" of Public Trusts. A "trustee" is a person in whom "either alone or in association with other person, the trust property is vested and includes a manager". The "Working Trustee" means any person "who for the time being either alone or in association with some other person or persons administers the trust property....." As per subsection 4(1), "the working trustee of every public trust shall apply to the Registrar having jurisdiction for the registration of the public trust" and the informations to be given in relation to such a public trust are mentioned in sub-section (3). Either on receipt of an application under Section 4 or on his own motion, the Registrar is required to make an enquiry "in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining facts enumerated in sub-clauses (i) to (viii), as per Section 5(1) and sub-section (2) requires that the Registrar "shall give in the prescribed manner public notice of the inquiry proposed to be made under sub-section (1) and invite all persons interested in the public trust under inquiry to prefer objections". On completion of the inquiry under section 5, the Registrar is required under Section 6 to "record his findings with reasons therefor as to the matters mentioned in the said section". We propose to quote now relevant portions from the next three sections :--

8. Deputy Advocate General Shri M. C. Jain, appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri V. G. Khot, appearing for respondent No. 4, have submitted that when the S.D.O. had passed his first order on 15-1-85-(Annexure A/3), he failed to satisfy himself that the applicant Shyambabu Sharma (peti-tioner No. 2) was a "Working Trustee" and indeed, he could not do so because of appel-late order of the Collector dated 11-4-1983 (Annexure R./1). In his application. Shyam babu had suppressed the material fact that respondent was "Pujari" and as per Col-lector's appellate order, his position in regard to that office or management of the property of the temple was not disturbed. If anybody could be regarded as "working trustee" under the Act on the date of constitution of the Trust on 15-1-1985, that person was respondent No. 4. That apart, the relevant informations furnished by Shyambabu in his applica-tion were neither complete nor correct even otherwise so as to meet the requirements of Section 4(3) of the Act. However, the main emphasis of the counsel is on jurisdictional requirement in the matter of registration of a "public trust" by the Registrar contemplated under Section 5. It is their submission that the enquiry has not been held in the "prescribed manner" and that public notice of the inquiry in the "prescribed manner" had not been given to all persons interested in the public trust and they have submitted that this fact is noted by the S.D.O. in the impugned order rendered subsequently on 3-7-1986.

12. Reliance by Shri Tomar on decisions cited may be tested now. In Phoolchand, AIR 1974 Madh Pra 55, what is held is that when the trust-deed does not provide for automatic termination of office on completion of term of trustees, the Registrar cannot remove the existing trustees and nominate new trustees in their place though that power can still be exercised by the Civil Court under Section 25(3) of the Act. In the case of Sheoprasad Dubey, 1972 Jab LJ (SN) 6 Page 5(2), the lis, similarly, was of a different complexion. It was held that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to make even "interim management" when action had already been taken by him under Section 26(1) of the Act and decision was taken for referring the matter to the Civil Court. If Mahant Narayandas, 1962 MPLJ (SN) 97 Page 46(1) serves any useful purpose, it supports the view taken by us. It was held that Registrar had power under Section 9 to direct changes to be made in the register maintained under the Act in respect to the office of Sarbarahkar. In that case, one part of the Registrar's order was held illegal because he had made a further direction for property belonging to the temple to be placed in possession of the Sarbarahkar so recorded. It was held that such a direction can always be made by Civil Court acting under Section 26 of the Act. In the case of Dalludas, 1971 Jab LJ (SN) 135 Page 108(1), the view expressed is that Registrar cannot act suo motu under Section 26 to remove an existing trustee because that power can only be exercised thereunder by the Civil Court. Evidently, in that case, there was no application under Section 9 of the Act by the Working Trustee for any change to be made with regard to any entry concerning the Manager which the Registrar had made in that case. As a matter of fact, the trust in that case did not have any "Manager" so recorded in the Register maintained under the Act. The decisions cited by Shri Tomar are evidently distinguishable on facts and indeed, in not a single case, the question which confronts us came up for consideration of the Court. We have already indicated that Registrar's power to act under Section 9 and of Civil Court to act under Sections 26 and 27 are of different shades and complexions and are mutually exclusive. The Registrar becomes functus officio when a "Public Trust" is validly constituted under the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. That apart, his power to act under Section 9 or for that matter, even under Section 25 to meet exigencies contemplated under those provisions, suffer no derogation on account of the jurisdiction vested in the Civil Court to act in accordance with the provisions of Sections 26 and 27. While Section 9 is wide enough to enable the Registrar to make any change in the entries recorded in the Register "in the interest of administration of a Public Trust". Section 25 specifically provides the Registrar with jurisdiction to make direction to the Working Trustees and also act himself for filling up of interim vacancy in the Board of Trustees in such manner as is not inconsistent to the instrument of the trust or the mode of succession specified in the Register. Those powers are not touched by Sections 26 and 27 as the Act vests in the Registrar jurisdiction in the matter of registration and constitution of a public trust under the Act and empowers him to act in incidental matters to make meaningful his supervision on such institutions.

13. We have no doubt that Registrar/ S.D.O. had full jurisdictional competence to act under Section 9 of the Act in this matter, at the instance of respondent No. 4. Although a "public trust" in respect of Shri Ramjanki Mandir was registered on 15-1-1985 that was done pursuant to direction made in that regard on 11-4-1983 by the Collector, Bhind. We have also demonstrated how, under that order of the Collector, respondent No. 4 continued to be in charge and management of the affairs of the Mandir. We have clearly shown above how Registrar/S.D.O. could not act on the application made under Section 4(1) of the Act by petitioner No. 2 Shyam-babu as that application contained incomplete and incorrect particulars and was made in suppression of real and actual facts. If it had revealed that as per Collector's order, petitioner No. 1 could not validly make that application as he was not a "Working Trustee", because respondent No. 4 could claim that status, or if it had disclosed the real fact that the lands attached to the temple were property of the State Government, managed by the Aukaf Department, in his order passed on 15-1-1985, the Registrar/S.D.O. would have clearly stated that the application was not maintainable and that he was acting suo motu under Section 5(1) pursuant to Collector's direction. Even if respondent No. 4 was not vested with the right to hold the trust property either under the order of the Collector or otherwise, the fact established in this case is that he managed, or in other words, "administered" the trust property. He could be. therefore, validly recorded as a "Working Trustee" under Section 2(9) of the Act despite the facf that he was not a "Trustee" as defined under Section 2(7) of the Act. The definition of the term embraces evidently a de facto trustee as also a trustee de son tort and respondent No. 4 clearly fulfilled that role by managing trust property to the exclusion of others even though he was doing so while acting only as a Pujari of the temple. We may appropriately refer in this connection to Apex Court's decision in Ishwardas, AIR 1968 SC 1364 in which Section 2(18) of Bombay Public Trust Act was considered. The distinction between a Manager or Shebait of the properties of an idol and trustee of the properties of the idol indicated by the Bombay High Court was duly stressed to observe that such Manager or Shebait being charged with administration or management of the property for and on behalf of the idol may not be the legal owner of the property and may not, therefore, be "landlord", like a "trustee". The Act has also evidently made distinction between a "Trustee" and a "Working Trustee" and has advisedly empowered the "Working Trustee" to initiate proceedings, whether under Section 4(1) or 9 of the Act.