Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. But merely because properties involved in the suit are trust properties itself will not make the suit within the ambit of Section 92, CPC. The Division Bench considered the fact involved in that case with respect to this very trust, its property and plaintiffs' grounds for challenge and reliefs claimed which as held in the present case are the same, the Division Bench held that permission under Section 92, CPC was condition precedent for maintaining the suit by holding that term "trustee" used in Section 92, CPC is in wider sense to include both express as well as implied trust. The trustee de son tort who is acting as a de facto trustee is covered under Section 92, CPC. A person who without title chooses to take upon himself the character of trustee becomes trustee de son tort and is liable to account for what he has done or what he has received while so acting in the same as if he was a de jure trustee. Such person may be described as a de facto trustee or a trustee de son tort and is distinguishable from a trespasser. In case before me also allegations of the plaintiffs are that, the property in dispute is trust property, suit is against person who according to the plaintiffs are claiming themselves to be trustees may be through deeds dated 15-12-1960 which are under challenge in this suit and even if allegations of the plaintiffs are found to be true even then the defendants can be said to be in the position of de facto trustees or trustees de son tort and cannot be treated as trespassers as even according to plaintiffs also the defendants are not claiming any right personal to them with respect to properties in dispute. In view of this, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs in the cases of Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji, AIR 1952 SC 143 and Bishwanath (supra), which were considered by the Division Bench in its judgment in Association 'of Radhaswami Dera Baba Bagga Singh v. Gurnam Singh, 1972 RLW 182 : (AIR 1972 Raj 263), also have no application to the facts of this case as in the case of Bishwanath (supra) the suit was for declaration of title and possession against the trespasser who was claiming right in himself under void deed of transfer and was not claiming himself to be trustee or as de facto trustee. In the plaint there are clear allegations of breach of trust by Baba Deva Singh. The plaintiffs stated in the plaint itself that Baba Deva Singh had no right to alienate the property in dispute because he was only sole Trustee. Baba Deva Singh, by transfer deed dated 15-12-60, delegated duties, work and power which is not permissible for the trustee. It is also admitted fact that what has been done by Baba Deva Singh or what has been purported to be done by Deva Singh is in the capacity of sole Trustee in execution of both the deeds and not in his personal capacity. Therefore, the allegations of breach of trust in the plaint are not only merely mentioned but are the basis and reason for filing the present suit which are also the cause of action in the suit. The present suit is not for and in exercise of personal right of any of the plaintiffs but it is clearly mentioned in the plaint itself that the suit is filed on behalf of disciples of the Dera and the plaintiffs sought permission under Order 1. Rule 10, CPC to institute suit in representative capacity.

25. The Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 starts as under :--

"An Act to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in_the State_ of Rajasthan".

26. The preamble of the Act is self-explanatory and made it clear that aims and objects in enacting of the Act was to (1) make better provisions for the trust, (2) which are situated in the State of Rajasthan.

27. The public trust has been defined in Sub-section (11) of Section 2 of the Act of 1959. As per the definition, "Public trust" means express or constructive trusts, it can be public religious or charitable or both, in the definition of public trust, temples math, dharmada and other religious and charitable endowment and institution and society-formed for religious or charitable purposes or for both are included. As per Sub-section (2) of Section 1, the Act of 1959 extends to the whole of the State of Rajasthan. Section 17 casts duty upon the working trustee to apply for registration of public trust. This application for registration of the public trust is required to be submitted to the Assistant Commissioner who is having jurisdiction for registration of public trust. As per Section 16. only Assistant Commissioner, in whose local limits of the area of jurisdiction, principal offices or principal place of the business of the trust, which has been declared in the application under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 will have jurisdiction to register the trust under the Act of 1959. Sub-clause (ii) of Sub-section 4 of the Section 17 requires disclosure of place where principal office or the principal place of business of the public trust is situated. As provided in Chapter III of the above Act, the officers and employees are required to be appointed by the State Government to administer, superintend and to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1959. The Devasthan Commissioner appointed under Section 7 of the Act of 1959, is the officer who shall have power of superintendence, administration and is responsible officer for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act, and in Section 7 itself it has been made very clear that Devasthan Commissioner's jurisdiction extended to the territories to which the Act applies, and if read with Sub-section (2) of Section 1, jurisdiction of the Devasthan Commissioner is limited to the territories of the State of Rajasthan only. As per Section 8, the State Government is to appoint Assistant Commissioner and define their local limits of the area in which the Assistant Commissioner shall have jurisdiction. The Assistant Commissioner is the in-charge of the registration of all public trusts as per Section 16. The Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction has been restricted to local limits of area of his jurisdiction. Before registration of public trust, the concerned Assistant Commissioner in whose local limits the principal office or the principal place of the business of the trust is situated, is required to enquire under Section 18, in addition to other matters, to ascertain (i) whether a trust exists and whether such trust Is the public trust; (ii) whether any property is the property of such trust; and (iii) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject-matter of the trust is situated within his jurisdiction. Above three matters are with respect to the existence of the trust, its nature, its property, and whether the property situated within the jurisdiction of the said Assistant Commissioner Rest of the matter of inquiry under Section 18 are with respect to the constitution, succession, origin, nature, object of the trust, its income and expenditure. After holding inquiry, the Assistant Commissioner is required to record findings on the matters mentioned in Section 18 and, thereafter, the said Assistant Commissioner is required to make entries in the register. Such Assistant Commissioner is further required to-publish the entries made under Section 21 at conspicuous place in the city, town or village where the principal office or principal place of business of the purpose is situated. The entries in register so made subject to other provisions of the Act of 1959 are made final and conclusive as per Sub-section (2) of Section 21. But in entire Act of 1959 there is no specific provision dealing with the registration of trust whose principal office and principal places of the business are not situated within the territories of the State of Rajasthan.

28. A bare perusal of the above provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959, it is clear that the Act of 1959 is (1) a State legislation, and (2) extend to the territories of the State of Rajasthan only, (3) the officers have been appointed under Chapter III of the Act having jurisdiction within the State of Rajasthan, and (4) the registering authority under Section 16 of the Act of 1959 is empowered to register only trust whose principal office or principal place of business is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the abovesaid registering authority. In the Act of 1959 there is no provision for appointing any officer vesting with the jurisdiction to entertain any application from the trustee of a trust, whose neither the principal office nor the principal place of business is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the officer and authorities appointed under the Act of 1959. It is further relevant to mention here that as per the Section 25 of the Act of 1959, even if any part of the property of the public trust is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of more than one Assistant Commissioner, then the Assistant Commissioner in charge of registration of that trust is required to send the copy or the entries recorded in the register in respect of the public trust to the each Assistant Commissioner within whose jurisdiction any part of the trust property is situated and upon receipt of the copy of the entries, the Assistant Commissioner of the place, in whose territorial jurisdiction that part of the property situated, is under an obligation to enter the particulars thereof in the book prescribed for the purpose. Therefore, even when part of the property of the trust is situated within territory of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner but the principal office and principal place of business is not situated within local limits of the jurisdiction of such Assistant Commissioner itself will not empower such Assistant Commissioner to register the public trust under the Act of 1959 is clearly demonstrated by Section 16 read with Section 25 of the Act of 1959. It is true that there is no provision under the Act of 1959 dealing with the situation when only part of the property of a trust is situated within the territories of the State of Rajasthan and neither principal office nor principal place of business is situated within the territories of the State of Rajasthan but the language of Sections 16, 17 and 18 unambiguously excludes, by implication, by making specific provisions for registration of public trust under the Act of 1959 which provides for establishing an authority who can accept application for registration of public trust only when principal office of the such trust are situated in local limits of the area of jurisdiction of any of the Assistant Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1959. When the Legislature has not empowered any of the authority to accept application on behalf of working trustee of the trust whose either principal office or principal place of business is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned authority then interpreting Sections 16(1) and 17(1) in a manner making obligatory for the working trustee of the trust whose principal offices and principal places of business are situated beyond the jurisdiction of such authority and empowering such authority to entertain application for registration of the trust will not only make the words "principal offices or the principal places of business" and the words "within the local limits of the area of his jurisdiction" in Section 16(1) superfluous but it will be empowering the Assistant Commissioner to entertain the application for registration of those public trusts for which they are not empowered by the Act of 1959. There appears no reason for holding that the Legislature has used the above words scrupulously. Rather there appears a clear intention of the Legislature; to make provision for registration of only those public trusts that are having their principal offices or principal places of business within the territory of the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, by entire reading of the Act of 1959 it is clear that the Act was enacted for making provisions for the public charitable trust whose principal offices or principal places of business are situated within the territories of the State of Rajasthan and this will be true meaning to the purpose for which the Act was enacted by saying : AN ACT to regulate and to make better provision for the administration of public, religious and_ charitable trusts in the State of Rajasthan.