VED PRAKASH Vs. VED MATA GAYATRI TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants preferred this appeal under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 31 -7 -2001 passed by the District Judge, Hardwar In Civil Misc. Case No. 12 of 1999 Sri Ved Prakash v. Ved Mata Gayatri Trust, whereby the District Judge has refused to grant leave to file suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code by rejecting the application of the applicants/plaintiffs paper Nos. 4C -2 and application paper No. 82 -C2.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiffs filed stilt with the prayer to grant leave to institute the suit under Section 92 of the CPC in respect of defendant No, 1 on the grounds, inter alia, that the defendant No. 1 is a Trust for public purposes of a charitable & religious nature, duly exempted even under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 having its principal activity in Shanti Kunj, Bhopatwala, Hardwar (hereinafter referred to as the Trust). That the aforesaid Trust was founded by late Sim\ Bhagwati Devi Sharma wife of late (Acharya) Sri Ram Sharma in respect of which she also executed a registered instrument dated 12 -11 -1969. That Smt. Bhagwati Devi Sharma, founder of the Trust appointed herself as the trustee and along with her she appointed Acharya Shri Ram Sharma aforesaid and her husband, Sri Satya Deo of Mathura, Sri Uma Shanker Chaturvedi of Bilaspur (M.P.) and Sri Shiv Shanker Gupta of Delhi as the trustees. That Smt. Bhagwati Devi Sharma, the founder of the Trust also executed a declaration dated 23 -1 -1974 in respect of the working of the Trust and celebrated the aims and objectives for the religious purpose. That in the year 1974 Sri Satya Deo and Sri Uma Shanker Chaturvedi have resigned from trustship and in their places Sri R.S. Verma and Sri Gulzari Mal Goel were taken as trustees. That later on Sri R.S. Verma died and in his place defendant No. 4 who was working as Accountant, was taken as a trustee and on the death of Sri Shiv Shanker Gupta, defendant No. 5 Major V.K. Khare was appointed as trustee by Smt. Bhagwati Devi Sharma. That after the death of Smt. Bhagwati Devi Sharma, defendant N6s. 1 & 3 started grabbing the assets of the Trust and ignoring other trustees and other trustees were not doing anything in the matter. That lot of ornaments and gold are received in donations but nothing is accounted for in the books of the Trust. Therefore, the Trust accounts are not being maintained properly and regularly. That the defendant Nos. 2 to 8 are committing constant breaches of Trust and are not managing and administering the Trust in a proper way and it is necessary in the interest of public and in the interest of justice to grant leave to the plaintiffs to file the suit under Section 92, CPC. The plaintiffs filed application paper No. 4C -2 with the prayer that leave be granted to the applicants under Section 92 of the CPC to file the suit.

(3.) THE defendant contested the case before the lower Court. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 filed their Joint written objection supported by affidavit. The opposite party Nod. 4 to 7 also filed their joint written objection supported by affidavit. The opposite party No. 8 filed separate written reply accepting the version of the applicants/plaintiffs and pressed for allowing the application of the applicants/plaintiff. The main objection of the Opp. party Nos. 1 to 7 was that on the direction of the opposite party No. 8 the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with mala fide intention and there is collusion in between the plaintiffs and opposite party No. 8. It was also said on behalf of the opposite parties that under the provisions of Section 92, CPC the applicants cannot be said to be the well wisher of the Trust and they have no right to file a suit. It was also the contention of the -opposite parties that opposite party No: 8 was expelled from the Trust on account of his indiscipline act and the plaintiffs' of the present suit who were working with the Trust left the Trust on their free will It was .also contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the applicants/plaintiffs can be seen as the representatives of opposite party No. 8 due to collusion because the plaintiffs and opposite party No. 8 b6th established a Trust on 12 -3 -1999 with the name of Param Pujya Guru Dev Gayatri Parivar Trust and the plaintiffs at their own free will left the Shantikunj in support of opposite party No. 8. The amendment was made in the said Trust deed on 12 -4 -1999 and the plaintiffs are joining with the opposite party No. 8 in the said new Trust while the applicants/plaintiffs filed this suit in the Court on 17 -4 -1999. In this situation filing of the suit on 17 -4 -1999 shows that the plaintiffs are in collusion with the opposite party No. 8 and they are indulging to ruin the Trust.