Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 768 (PNJ)

Kanhaiya Lal Khatak v. Manohar Lal

2001-07-26

M.L.SINGHAL

body2001
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - This is a revision filed by Kanhaiya Lal Khatak, plaintiff, against the order dated 8.12.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby he had allowed the appeal of defendants-Manohar Lal and others against the order dated 15.6.1999 of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, allowing the application of the plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal Khatak, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for restraining the defendants from naming the charitable eye hospital at Faridabad after the name of the trustee or his nominee. 2. Plaintiff-Kanhaiya Lal Khatak filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-Manohar Lal and others. It was alleged in the plaint that there was a trust created by Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj of District Bannu, now in west Pakistan and the plaintiff was one of the trustees of the said trust. On April 2, 1992 the defendants had passed illegally and wrongfully a resolution whereby the plaintiff was illegally and arbitrarily removed from the trust. Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj of District Bannu had bequeathed, by way of registered Will, which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bannu on dated 3.5.1945, the entire of his properties to the Trust for establishing a Gurdwara and had specifically laid down that the trustees should be the persons who have faith in holy Sri Guru Granth Sahib and follow its scriptures. The followers of Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj of District Bannu, who had migrated to Faridabad, consequent upon the partition of the country, were to carry out the work of the Trust in accordance with the wishes of Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj. Trust had left movable and immovable property in Pakistan and after the partition of the country the trustees started the activities of setting up of a Gurdwara in New Industrial Township in Faridabad. Land was allotted to the Trust by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India through Shri Sudhir Ghosh, Administrator of the Faridabad Development Board, for the purpose of erecting a Gurdwara and Musafir Khana. Thereafter, through contributions and donations by the public at large who were owing allegiance to the Sikh faith and Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj a Gurdwara along with Musafir Khana was constructed. Thereafter, through contributions and donations by the public at large who were owing allegiance to the Sikh faith and Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj a Gurdwara along with Musafir Khana was constructed. The property situated at the site known as Trust Dera Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj, Bannuwale, N.H.-1, N.I.T., Faridabad, is physically a Gurdwara and all the assets of the Gurdwara vest in the trust. None of the trustees can treat the Trust property as his personal property or the property of any of his facilities. Trustees kept on functioning normally and of late the income of the Gurdwara rose to Rs. 70,000/-. Manohar Lal etc. became afflicted with greed and they set their eyes on the properties of the Trust. No trustee in his personal or individual capacity can use or misuse the Trust property in his name or in the name of any of the members of his family. Plaintiff had objected to the trustees projecting the members of their facilities in the Gurdwara as religious figures, whereas, according to Sikh Tenets no living person can be equated with any of the ten Gurus and the holy Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Plaintiff started objecting to the defendants trying to convert the Gurdwara into one of a Dera for their personal purposes. He was disassociated as a trustee by passing an illegal and arbitrary resolution dated 2.4.1992. The suit of the plaintiff was challenged by the defendants. Ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff which continued. 3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed praying that defendants be restrained from opening a hospital and naming it "Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital" or naming it after the name of some trustee or his relative, in the Gurdwara premises. It was stated that the defendants tied a banner in front of the Gurdwara premises wherein they had contemplated to open a Charitable eye hospital in the name of Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital in the Gurdwara premises. Plaintiff objected and requested the defendants not to use the Gurdwara as a personal institution which is a religious place and vested in the community at large. Late Mehar Chand was father of Manohar Lal, defendant No. 1. Plaintiff objected and requested the defendants not to use the Gurdwara as a personal institution which is a religious place and vested in the community at large. Late Mehar Chand was father of Manohar Lal, defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 had an evil eye on the Gurdwara and other properties of the Trust - Dera Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj Bannuwale, N.H.-1, N.I.T., Faridabad. Defendant No. 1, Manohar Lal, in order to show to public at large and project his own image had decided to open an eye hospital in the name of his father. In case, the defendants succeed in opening the eye hospital in the name of the father of the defendant in Gurdwara, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. In nutshell, what the plaintiff wanted was that they should remain the property of the trust known as Dera Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj, Bannuwale, N.H.-1, N.I.T., Faridabad and that there should be no effort by any of the trustees to perpetuate his own memory or the memory of any member of his family with the use of the trust property and that Gurdwara should remain the property of the community at large and that no one should treat the Gurdwara as his personal property and Gurdwara should run strictly in accordance with Sikh faith (Gurmaryada). Plaintiff prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from opening any eye hospital or any other hospital in the name of the defendants or in the name of any member of their family. Defendants opposed this application urging that Trust is being run for charitable purposes in true letter and spirit for which it was set up in the beginning. Orders passed by the appellate Court have authorised the trustees to take decision by majority. The trustees want to open a charitable eye hospital in the name of Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital meant for the public at large. In the meeting of the trust also on 11.67.1999 in which plaintiff was also present, it was unanimously decided to open Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital. The plaintiff who deliberated the meeting and agreed to the decision, refused to sign the resolution. Vide order dated 15.6.1999, temporary injunction was allowed to the plaintiff restraining the defendants from naming the hospital after their own name or after the name of any of the members of their family. The plaintiff who deliberated the meeting and agreed to the decision, refused to sign the resolution. Vide order dated 15.6.1999, temporary injunction was allowed to the plaintiff restraining the defendants from naming the hospital after their own name or after the name of any of the members of their family. Opening of the charitable eye hospital was, however, not stayed. 4. Defendants went in appeal against this order dated 15.6.1999 to Additional District Judge, Faridabad. 5. Vide order dated 8.12.1999, learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, allowed the appeal. Not satisfied with the order of learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dated 8.12.1999, plaintiff (Kanhaiya Lal Khatak) has come up in revision to this Court. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 7. Vide registered Will dated 3.5.1945 executed by Sant Bhagat Singh son of Bhai Mohan Singh, he bequeathed all his properties movable and immovable to the trust. It was laid down in the Will that the trustees shall manage properties and they will spend every penny raised by them due to it, in the benefit of the Gurdwara which was to be established. Only he could be trustee who was a follower of Sikh faith and scriptures of the holy Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Shri Mehar Chand was one of the founder-trustees named in the Will. Other trustees named in the Will by him are - Chaudhary Sant Ram Singh, Chaudhary Kishan Chand Chawla, Sardar Mangat Singh, Lala Hari Ram and Giani Joginder Singh. 8. It was submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the intention of the creator of the Trust was that the properties owned by him should vest in the Trust for establishment of Gurdwara. Trust was created by Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj for a religious and charitable purpose. It was further submitted that no trustee in his personal/individual capacity can use or misuse the trust property either in his own name or in the name of any of the members of his family. It was also submitted that setting up of charitable eye hospital is laudable but naming it as Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital, is something intended to perpetuate the memory of Bhagat Mehar Chand who was one of the trustees. It was also submitted that setting up of charitable eye hospital is laudable but naming it as Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital, is something intended to perpetuate the memory of Bhagat Mehar Chand who was one of the trustees. It was submitted that it would be playing foul with the intention of the creator of the Trust if charitable eye hospital set up in the Gurdwara is named after Bhagat Mehar Chand. It was submitted that the petitioners effort was only aimed at seeing the Gurdwara remain property of the community at large and should not be treated as the personal property of the defendants and the Gurdwara should run strictly in accordance with the Sikh faith (Gurmaryada). It was also submitted that the building was constructed by the offerings made and the donations raised from the devotees and other people having faith in Sikh tenets and, therefore, it was all the more necessary that the Gurdwara should remain a religious property and should not be the property of any of the defendants. It was submitted that Manohar Lal, defendant is son of Bhagat Mehar Chand. He along with other trustees mooted out an idea of launching the hospital from the funds of the Gurdwara by naming it as Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital to enhance the personal image of late Shri Mehar Chand and his son Manohar Lal in the eyes of devotees and the general public so that ultimately they should be treated as head of the sect. 9. It was submitted that Section 51 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the 1882 Act) prohibits the use of trust property or dealing with Trust property as his own property by any trustee for any other purpose unconnected with the trust. Section 51 of the Indian Trust Act, 1982 lays down that a trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the Trust. It is a general rule established to keep the trustees in the straight line of their duty, but they shall not derive any personal advantage from the administration of the trust property. It is a general rule established to keep the trustees in the straight line of their duty, but they shall not derive any personal advantage from the administration of the trust property. It is universal proposal and of great moment to the safety and property of mankind that a trustee ought strictly to pursue the tenor of his trust without perverting directly or indirectly to his own personal advantage. It was submitted that the trustee has to use or deal with the trust property for a purpose connected with the Trust. Section 52 of the Act lays down that no trustee whose duty is to sell trust property and no agent employed by such trustee for the purpose of the sale, may, directly or indirectly buy the same or any interest therein on his own account or as agent for a third person. 10. It was submitted that the intention of the legislature while enacting Section 52 of the 1982 Act is that no trustee shall act in a manner that he furthers his own interest at the cost of the interests of the Trust. It was submitted that in the process of naming of charitable eye hospital as Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital, the name of Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj who was the creator of the Trust, will go into background and the name of one of the trustees named Bhagat Mehar Chand shall be in the forefront and it will be viewed as if Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital has been created by the family of Bhagat Mehar Chand. 11. It was submitted that the learned trial Court had in the exercise of its discretion granted injunction and the learned appellate Court should not have vacated injunction when the exercise of discretion by the learned trial Court was not perverse but was based on reason, equity and justice. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Sudhir Namasudra and others v. Purnendu Kumar Das, AIR 1980 Gauhati 1. He further drew my attention to Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited v. Sunder Bros., Delhi, AIR 1967 SC 249, wherein it was held that the appellate Court can reverse the exercise of discretion by trial Court only if it appears to it that in exercising its discretion, the trial Court has acted unreasonably and capriciously or has ignored relevant facts. He further drew my attention to Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited v. Sunder Bros., Delhi, AIR 1967 SC 249, wherein it was held that the appellate Court can reverse the exercise of discretion by trial Court only if it appears to it that in exercising its discretion, the trial Court has acted unreasonably and capriciously or has ignored relevant facts. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner, the fact that the appellate Court has taken a different view, may not justify such an interference with the trial Courts exercise of discretion. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there would be no misuse of the trust properties by any of the trustees if the charitable eye hospital is named as Bhagat Mehar Chand Eye Hospital particularly when words "Dera Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj" have not been given go by. It was submitted that charitable eye hospital has been named as follows :- "Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital Dera Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj" It was submitted that naming the charitable eye hospital as Bhagat Mehar Chand Eye Hospital i.e. after the name of Bhagat Mehar Chand who was one of the founder-trustees, is not going to cause any injury to the trust. Trustees were required to engage themselves in the service of the Gurdwara. Naming of the charitable eye hospital as Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital, to my mind, may interfere with the intention of the creator of the Trust, who created this Trust. For the reasons given above, this revision succeeds and is allowed. Temporary injunction granted to the plaintiff by the learned trial Court is restored. Revision allowed.