Dismissed

Laldas Guru v. the Registrar Public Trust and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC26 Nov 2012MA/1076/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed an appeal against the removal of the appellant from his post as Manager of a public trust. The court held that as a transferee from the managing trustee found misappropriating trust property, the appellant held the position of a trustee de son tort and was removable under Section 27 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's order removing the appellant from the post of Manager and appointing a Receiver.

Laldas Guru Vs the Registrar Public Trust and Anr. — Specific Performance | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 1076 of 1998

¶3

APPELLANT : Laldas Gum, Manager/Poojari of Lord Defendant Jagnnath Mandir, Champa, Tehsil Janjgir, District Bilaspur (M.P.)

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

RESPONDENTS 1. The Registrar, Public Trust, Janjgir, Plaiatiff District Bilaspur. 2. (1) Shri Shantilal Gupta, S/o late Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta, aged about 60 years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Champa, District Janjgu'-Champa

¶6

(C.G.)

¶7

(MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 27^3) OF M.P.PUBLIC TRUST ACT. 1951)

¶8

(SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.)

¶9

Present:

¶10

Shri Sourabh Shanna, counsel for the appellant. Shri G.D.Vaswani, G.A. with Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. For the State.

¶11

ORAL ORDER » (Passedon 27/11/2012)

¶12

The instant misc. appeal is dkected against the order dated 2.9.1995

¶13

passed by the 1 Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in MJC No. 4/81.

¶14

Facts necessary for disposal ofthis appeal are as under:

¶15

i) Plaintif£/'respondent No.l filed an application under Section 26 (2) ofthe M.P. Public Tmsts Act, 1951 (for short the Act) for removal of the appellant and for appointment ofReceiver, inter alia on the ground that t% Tmst property is being mismanaged by the appellant.

""%:T;;^iT'^'

ii)

iii)

The appellant herem by filing written statement controverted the plaint allegations and stated that he is not working as tmstefe of the Temple but the working Tmstee is ex-malgujar of Champa, i.e., R. Sharandas and denied the allegations made in the application and further stated that he is only Manager of the Temple appointed by the ex-malgujar ofChampa.

¶22

The trial Court allowed the plamtiffs application, removed the appellant fi-om his post, directed him to haadover the entire accounts, property, pass-book, cash of the trust in his hands to the Registrar and also appointed the Receiver, finding inter alia, the appellant is the Manager of Shri Jagannath Mandir, a registered public biist and the appellant has done th? work adversely to the interest of the public bnst and sold the property of the trust and not invested the amount in Temple. Hence, this appeal.

¶23

Shri Sourabh Sharma, leamed counsel for the appellant, would submit: the trial Court has legally erred in holding the appellaat as Manager and/or workmg trustee and in passing the order impugned against him, masmuch as, he is Maaager of the trust, nominated/appomted by the working Trustee, i.e., ex-malgujar ofChampa and not the working trustee.

¶24

On the other hand, Shri G.D.Vaswani, leamed G.A. for the State/respondent No.l supported the order impugned and submitted: he was appointed as Manager (Sarvarakar) by the only trustee, ex-ms^ujar &f Champa and the trial Court, havmg fouad the appellant is misappropriating/mismanaging and illegally sellmg the trust property, has rightly passed the order impugned, which does not call for any interference.

¶25

6i^'!^ "<sa;j»;i 1 .,''""" i'1 J \ ;KlB»"' ,;*" '^i'^^E^.^^..-^""

¶26

¶27

¶28

I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Court below includmg order impugaed.

¶29

Indisputably, the appellant was nominated/appointed by the trustee of the Trust as Manager (Sarvarakar), who is also working as Poojari (Priest). Ample evidence is available on record showing the tmstproperty was in his possession and he is misappropriatmg/mismaaagmg and illegally sellmg the * tmst property.

¶30

Under Section 26 (1) ofthe Act, ifthe Registrar on the application of any person interested in the public tmst or otherwise is satisfied that —

¶31

(a)the originalobjectofthepublictmsthas failed; ^

¶32

(b) the tmst property is not being properly managed or admimstered; or

¶33

¶34

publictmst;

¶35

he may, after giving the working tmstee an opportunity to be heard direct such trustee to apply to court for drrections within the time specified by the Registrar.

¶36

Under Section 27 ofthe Act, the Distnct Judge is given authority to decide whether the trust is bemg properly managed or not. The transferee from the managing trustee is in the position of tmstees de son tort and hence he can also be removed and directed to deliver possession of ^ie property.

¶37

In the instant case, th'e possession of the tmst property has been transferred in favour ofthe appellant by the tmstee, the then ex-malgujar of Champa, and therefore, the appellant being a transferee from the managing

¶38

.^ \£i,

¶39

: "•"•*•!&,
^
•;< s

¶40

tmstee is in the position of trustee de son tort and hence he can also be removed and directed to deliver possession ofthe property.

¶41

1. In view of above, the trial Court has not committed any error in passing the order impugned warranting interference of tfus Court in the mstant appeal.

¶42

For the foregoing, the appeal, being devoid ofmerit, is liable to be

¶43

and is hereby dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-
N. K. Agarwal
Judge

Laldas Guru v. the Registrar Public Trust and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laldas Guru v. the Registrar Public Trust and Anr.

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

M/S Begraj Agrawal Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

M/S V.K. Tiles Vs the Esi Corporation

Suresh Kumar Singh Vs Raghvendra Kumar and Ors.

Steel Authority of India Ltd.and Ors. Vs Smt. Urmila Bai and Ors.

Central Bank of India Vs Suresh Kumar Sharma and Ors.

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs v.vimal Kumar And Ors.