Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 453 (MP)

Urmila Patel v. Ravindra Patel

2003-03-26

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application filed under Section 32 of the M. P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (for brevity the Act) by the applicants herein. The applicants are the defendants in the Trial Court. A suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by the plaintiffs--Ravindra Patel and three others who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 here in this revision petition. Murti Shri Laxmi Narayan Bhagwan Mandir has been arrayed as defendant No. 1. In the suit, an application under Section 32 of the Act was filed stating therein that looking to the plaint averments, in fact, the suit has been filed by Murti Shri Laxmi Narayan Bhagwan Mandir and the plaintiffs have clothed Murti Shri Laxmi Narayan Bhagwan Mandir as defendant No. 1. It has been contended that defendant No. 1 is not a registered Trust and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs as the representatives of the Murti Shri Laxmi Narayan Bhagwan Mandir is barred under Section 32 of the said Act. ( 2. ) THIS application was opposed by the plaintiffs by filing a reply contending therein that the application is malafide. On the earlier occasion, the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC which has already been rejected and now by giving a colour of Section 32 of the Act again with the same prayer, the application has been filed. It has been prayed by the plaintiffs that the application be dismissed. ( 3. ) THE Trial Court after giving its anxious consideration to the provision of Section 32 of the Act dismissed the application, hence this revision. ( 4. ) IN this revision Mr. R. S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicants has contended that though Murti Shri laxmi Narayan Bhagwan Mandir has been arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the suit, indeed, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffs as representatives of the idol and because the Trust is not a registered Trust, the suit is barred under Section 32 of the Act. ( 5. ) TO understand the rival contention of learned Counsel for the applicants, it shall be apposite to read Section 32 of the Act which is reproduced as under :- " 32. ( 5. ) TO understand the rival contention of learned Counsel for the applicants, it shall be apposite to read Section 32 of the Act which is reproduced as under :- " 32. Bar to hear or decide suits.-- (1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which has not been registered under this Act shall be heard or decided by any Court. (2) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall apply to a claim or set off or other proceeding to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust. " ( 6. ) ON bare perusal of the above said Section, it is perceptible that the suit cannot be filed by public trust or in its behalf to enforce a right, if the said trust is not registered. I have seen the averments made in the plaint. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs Ravindra Patel and others arraying Murti Shri Laxmi Narayan Bhagwan Mandir as defendant No. 1 and the applicants as defendant Nos. 2 to 8, in the prayer clause the plaintiffs had prayed the relief against the defendant No. 1 that the sale-deed executed by the defendant No. 1 dated 4-12-2000 in favour of defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 be declared null and void. Thus, it cannot be said that the suit has been filed on behalf of the trust. The plaintiffs are claiming their independent right in the suit property and under that right they had also sought a decree of injunction. ( 7. ) THE provisions of Section 32 of the said Act are luminously clear and it bars to enforce a right of a public trust which is not registered under the Act. However, this provision could not be stretched to mean that it prohibits any suit being filed against the public trust which is not registered. In this context, it shall be relevant to refer the decision of this Court in the case of Kesa alias Keshuram and Ors. v. Kalu alias Devaji and two Ors. , 1973 JLJ Short Note 26. The Supreme Court in the case of Kapoor Chand and Ors. v. Ganesh Dutt and Ors. In this context, it shall be relevant to refer the decision of this Court in the case of Kesa alias Keshuram and Ors. v. Kalu alias Devaji and two Ors. , 1973 JLJ Short Note 26. The Supreme Court in the case of Kapoor Chand and Ors. v. Ganesh Dutt and Ors. , AIR 1993 SC 1145 , has held that if the property belonging to a temple is sold by Manager and if a suit is filed by worshippers for declaration that the sale deed executed by Manager was null and void, the suit was held to be maintainable. Looking to the averments made in the plaint, the case of Kapoor Chand (supra) is fully applicable in the present case. ( 8. ) AN alternative submission has been made by the learned Counsel for the applicants that they had filed the written statement and the said objection has been raised therein, as such the Trial Court may be directed to frame necessary issue and decide it accordingly. It be seen that firstly the applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC which was rejected by the Trial Court and thereafter, by filing the present application they raised the objection regarding the maintainability of the suit. The Trial Court rejected the application on its merit and, therefore, it would not be lawful to direct the Trial Court to re-decide the objection after framing the issue. ( 9. ) IN the result, there is no force in the revision and the same is hereby dismissed.