Disposed

Naresh Kapoor and Another v. Somnath Dharmarth Trust and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023A227/4835/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 226, petitioner challenged the rejection of an application for impleadment as a necessary party in a suit filed by a trustee seeking permission to sell trust property. The High Court declined interference but directed that the petitioners be afforded a hearing as mandated by the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no immediate relief granted, but right to hearing under Section 7 of Charitable and Religious Trusts Act preserved.

Naresh Kapoor and Another Vs Somnath… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138016

¶3

Court No. - 1

¶4

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4835 of 2023

¶5

Petitioner :- Naresh Kapoor And Another Respondent :- Somnath Dharmarth Trust And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shodan Singh,Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Tarun Agrawal

¶6

Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffrespondent no. 1.

¶8

This petition has been filed seeking following relief:

¶9

"(i) set aside the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by District Judge Bijnor in Civil Misc. Case No. 250 of 2020 : Son Nath Dharmarth Trust Versus Bharat Kumar and others (Annexure no. 7 to the petition).

¶10

(ii) Direct to District Judge to allow the petitioners application (Paper No. 360-C) under order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C.)"

¶11

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a charitable trust was created by the father of the petitioners and, one Vimla Rani, who alleged herself to be the wife of the creator of the trust, got executed a supplementary trust deed in Haridwar, though the original trust was registered in New Delhi and thereafter, the aforesaid Vimla Rani filed an application before the District Judge, Bijnor being Misc. Case No. 250 of 2020 seeking permission to sell the trust properties. It is stated that on coming to know about the deception, the petitioners filed an application Paper No. 36C under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to be made parties on the ground that they are necessary parties. It is stated that by the impugned order dated 5.4.2023, their application has been rejected on the ground that they have no vested interest in the property of the trust and they are not necessary parties whose impleadment would enable the court to effectually and completely

¶12

¶13

adjudicate upon and settle all disputes involved in the suit. It is contended that the learned District Judge has overlooked the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920¹ which mandates affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to all persons appearing in connection with the petition filed by a trustee under Section 7(1) of the Act, 1920.

¶14

Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners have no right to claim impleadment in the aforesaid petition as they are not trustees. However, he has fairly submitted that an opportunity of being heard is required to be afforded to the petitioners in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, 1920.

¶15

As far as a charitable trust is concerned, the Act, 1920 was enacted to provide effectual control over the administration of charitable and religious trusts. Under Section 3 thereof, any person having an interest in any express or constructive trust created or existing for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature may apply by petition to the court having jurisdiction for directions as reflected in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3. The contents and procedure of the petition are provided in Sections 4 and 5 and the consequences for failure of trustee to comply with an order under Section 5 is provided under Section 6. The powers of the trustee to apply for directions is given in Section 7 wherein the rights of third persons to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard on a petition filed by a trust under Section 7 has been provided. Under the facts and circumstances, the observation that since the petitioners have no vested interest in the property of the trust and are not necessary parties, has to be seen in the light of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, 1920. Even otherwise, a suit can be brought against the trustees in respect of public charities under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure subject to the conditions mentioned in that provision.

¶16

1 Act, 1920

¶17

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, interference in the order impugned is declined. However, it is provided that the right available to the petitioners under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act, 1920 are preserved and the court considering the petition would be required to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to them.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 A. V. Singh

¶21

(Jayant Banerji, J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naresh Kapoor and Another v. Somnath Dharmarth Trust and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kapoor and Another v. Somnath Dharmarth Trust and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Devesh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gurpreet Kaur Vs Mamchand (Deceased) and 7 Others

Smt. Ramshri Sharma Vs Kanti Prasad Dwivedi (Since Deceased) and 10 Others

Maziburrahman (Alias Mojiburrahman) and Another Vs Mahfuzurrahman and Another

Ashok Kumar Agrawal Vs Vinod Kumar and 10 Others

Abdul Tarique (Since Dead) and 3 Others Vs Suresh Kumar