Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. However, the learned court below found that the said property is sold in the name of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India, which is not a registered Trust and not in the name of father of the plaintiff. Thus, the court below found that the property in question is not sold to the father of the plaintiff in his personal capacity but it is sold to an unregistered Trust in the name Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India. Since the Trust was unregistered, therefore, the Trustees of the said Trust has right and title over the property in question. Plaintiff has not averred that his father was one of the Trustee of the said unregistered Trust. Thus, the court below found that the appellant/plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit and accordingly rejected the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) and (d) CPC. Being aggrieved therewith, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

7. It is further submitted that the court below only on assumption that the disputed property has been purchased in the name of the Trust, which is governed by the Indian Trust Act, 1882. According to section 5, a trust cannot come in existence unless the settlers or trustees have made the trust by non-testamentary document or settler by way of Will or by way of testamentary document and if such trust is unregistered, holds/owns immovable property then such property shall be treated to be property owned by Trustee and not by the Trust. It is further observed that trustees of unregistered trust have no distinct identity and to the extent of the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882, it can be said to be valid and can be enforced.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14425 5 FA-35-2025 It is further held that the property has been purchased in the name of the Lutheran Mission of Salvation of India, Jabalpur M.P., which was represented by the father of plaintiff V.J.Sydney as a President of the Trust and, accordingly, the property in question is not the property owned and held by father of the appellant plaintiff. It is further observed that the trust being unregistered, the trust and the trustees have got right in the disputed property, in absence of any pleading in regard to the plaintiff trusteeship in the Trust and the suit has been filed claiming the property to be owned by father of the plaintiff, who died intestate and as such the appellant has got no right, title and interest in the property, according to which the court finds that no rights in favour of the appellant/plaintiff have been vested and, accordingly, no cause of action accrued in favour of the appellant plaintiff to prosecute the present suit. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed.

10. From perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the learned court below has committed an elementary error of law by applying the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. From the perusal of the plaint averments, it is found that in the plaint, it is nowhere mentioned that the property in question is purchased in the name of an unregistered trust. In fact, in para 3 of the plaint it is averred that the property was purchased in the name of unregistered society. There is a vast difference between a society and a trust. Both the entities being a juristic person, are governed by different statutes in M.P. For society, the applicable statute is Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, and for trust, when it is not a public charitable trust, provisions of the Indian Trust Act are applicable, but, as a matter of fact, nowhere it has been pleaded in the plaint that the property NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14425 7 FA-35-2025 belongs to a trust or purchased in the name of trust by the father of the appellant plaintiff. Then under what circumstances the court below has considered that the property purchased by the father of the appellant in the name of trust and applied the provisions of Indian Trust Act in the impugned order ? It seems that either the court below has not read the file because of neglect or may be deliberately has applied wrong provisions of law while dealing with the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and rejected the plaint, which is a matter of enquiry. However, without going into that aspect of that matter, at this stage, the legality of the impugned order is tested on the basis of the available facts of the present case.