Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 163 (UTT)

Prem v. Anil Bisht

2016-04-11

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Both these revisions pertain to the same controversy regarding the same property, though have arisen out of the separate orders passed by the District Judge, Haridwar. Hence, these are being adjudicated together by this single judgment. It transpires that one set of applicants, namely, Mahant Gopal Giri and his three associates moved an application under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was adjudicated by impugned judgment passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 503/2011, while another set of applicants, namely, Anil Bisht and his one more associate moved a separate application seeking to achieve the same object which was adjudicated by the learned District Judge, Haridwar vide the impugned judgment passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 435/2011 and the learned Court was pleased to grant the permission to launch the original suit under Section 92 CPC and such litigation is advancing before the Court below. It has vehemently been argued by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the property, in question, was initially owned by Musammat Mangla and she, in her old age, executed a Will dated 3.9.1896 AD, whereby a private trust was created to manage the affairs of this vast property including a temple of Radha Krishna within the precincts of the Haveli (a big residential units of abodes) and, as argued, this is evident from the language of the Will that she reposed the trust to manage the affairs of the temple and other properties in her brother Prabhu Dayal Singh and then in another brother Kant Singh and further in their descendants. So, this way almost more than 100 years had passed and by the passage of time, since the property acquired the dear market value, hence it transpires that dishonesty germinated in the intentions of all the descendants and in order to achieve their ill motives of acquiring some personal gains/vast profits, an Original Suit No. 173/1999 was initiated by Mahesh Kumar (one of the descendants in the pedigree) against Smt. Prem and her husband Dinesh Chandra Shastri seeking prohibitory injunction to the effect of not interfering in the management. In furtherance of their ill intentions, they filed a compromise dated 7.4.2000 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. In furtherance of their ill intentions, they filed a compromise dated 7.4.2000 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar on the pretext that although the case was fixed for hearing on 11.4.2000, but since Smt. Prem had to leave the station, hence compromise be accepted on that very day and the learned Civil Judge accepted such compromise. Language of such compromise by itself speaks in volumes revealing the ill intentions of the parties. They distributed the property of the whole trust getting declaration to be the respective owners of their shares and the decree was prepared as per the terms of such compromise. When certain outside persons, either neighbouring or of the community or of the devotees of the temple, came to know about this collusion, they moved an appeal no. 14/2000 before the Court of Additional District Judge and after hearing all concerned, the Additional District Judge set aside such collusive decree vide judgment and order dated 4.11.2003 and remanded the Original Suit for rehearing, But again, in order to frustrate the order of District Judge, an application was moved by the successors of Mahesh Kumar (since Mahesh Kumar had passed away) seeking to withdraw that litigation and such application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge vide her order dated 30.8.2007. After withdrawal of such suit, the descendants began to execute the sale deeds of the different shares, as has been disclosed in paragraph no. 12 of the application under Section 92 CPC bearing Miscellaneous Case No. 503/2011. Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is not confined to the public charitable trust only. If the trust is of some religious nature, then also this provision comes into play. It is evident that over a period of time, inasmuch as more than 100 years, since the temple of Radha Krishna was situated within the precincts of the Haveli, hence it attracted a large number of local residents as devotees. Thus, it acquired the status of a public religious trust. For a moment, if may not be considered as charitable, but it is difficult to deny that its nature is not religious one. That apart, in this short revision, this Court is not expected to go through the entire merits in deep and the same is subject to evidence before the Court of District Judge. Hence, I find no merit in these revisions. That apart, in this short revision, this Court is not expected to go through the entire merits in deep and the same is subject to evidence before the Court of District Judge. Hence, I find no merit in these revisions. Both the revisions are hereby dismissed.