MITALKUMAT BHARATBHAI KOTHARI Vs. JINDASBHAI PREMCHANDBHAI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals have been filed under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (for short 'the B.P.T. Act') by the appellants original respondents challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Surendranagar dated 11.03.2011 in Civil Misc. Application No.37/2010 on the grounds stated in the present appeals inter alia that the Court below has failed to appreciate that Shri Ratnachandraji Maharaj was the Guru of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj who expired on 15.05.1941, established Vardhman Sampraday. It is contended that the Court below has appreciated that Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday, his followers had formed a public trust known as 'Shri Satavadhani Pandit Ratna Shri Ratnachandraji Jain Vidhyapith, Surendranagar'. It is contended that the Trust Deed was made keeping in mind the principles and objects of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday and it was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. After Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj expired on 01.07.1980, the activities of the Trust were carried out as per the Trust Deed and under guidance of Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday. It is contended that Ajramar Sampraday had tried to enter the activities of the Trust by attracting Sadhu and Sadhvi of Vardhman Sampraday in their Ajramar Sampraday. It is contended that Ajramar Sampraday was successful in seeing to it that Sadhvi of Vardhman Sampraday who were disciples of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday, joined Ajramar Sampraday and thereby they had acted against the interest of the Trust and the principles and objects for which the aforesaid Trust was established for Vardhman Sampraday. It is contended that the Trustees of the said Trust illegally carried out various activities including reconstruction work of Upashray and the name of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj was taken out and the name of Jai Ajramar was placed. It is further contended that the activities of Shri Satavadhani Pandit Ratna Shri Ratnachandraji Jain Vidhyapith, Surendrdanagar were not being carried out as per terms of the Trust Deed, principles and objects of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj and Vardhman Sampraday. In the meeting of Trustees of Shri Satavadhani Pandit Ratna Shri Ratnachandraji Jain Vidhyapith, Surendranagar held on 09.05.2009, a resolution came to be passed whereby it was decided that the activities of the Trust will be managed as per the instructions of Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaji and in every resolution his consent would be necessary. It is contended that this aspect has been appreciated by the Court below that Trustees were acting against the interest of Trust and, therefore, as per the powers delegated to Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj, a resolution dated 05.07.2009 was passed by Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj for removal of some of the Trustees and admission of new Trustees, for which copy of resolution is produced at Annexure D. It is contended that the names of Poonamchandraji Maharaj and Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj of Vardhman Sampraday have been removed and even the photo and gaadi of Shri Poonamchandraji Maharaj, which was kept in the hall, have also been removed.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.J. A. Adeshara for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.Gaurang H. Bhatt for the respondents.

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the appellants submitted that as the Trust has been found for charitable object, the decision for removal of the Trustees in the past have taken place. It was submitted that no judicial inquiry is made or followed as required under Section 22 of the Trust Deed. He submitted that the inquiry as contemplated under Section 22 has not been held by the Charity Commissioner and the Court below has failed to appreciate that any such Maharaj has not been entrusted with authority to remove the trustees in such meeting. He submitted that on the ground of the mode of succession, no opportunity has been given to the Trustees. He submitted that on such matters of faith and religion, the matters may be remanded for deciding afresh. In the facts of the case, it is not the resolution of the trust for removal of the trustees, but Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj has passed a resolution for removal of the trustees in exercise of powers given to him by the trust in the resolution passed by the Members. Therefore, it was contended that it is not the resolution passed by the trustees of the trust, but simply one person has passed resolution which cannot be said to be followed under the Provisions of the B.P.T. Act. There is no dispute that the resolution has been passed by Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj based on the resolution of the trustees authorizing him to take necessary steps. The provisions of the B.P.T. Act provides for the procedure to be followed for management of the affairs of the trust, the trustees are managing the affairs of the trust and are therefore responsible for the decisions affecting the trust. Further, the resolution which is not passed by the trustees, but which is passed by Shri Nirmalmuni Maharaj cannot be said to be provided under the Bombay Trust Act.