CHANDAN Vs. LONGA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11-10-1995 passed by First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bhind.

(2.) Facts leading to the appeal in short are :That one Ashok Kumar, the original-plaintiff., filed the suit against Mst. Harbo Bai for cancellation of the order passed on 14-7-1969 by the Registrar and for declaration to the effect that the property in suit is a public trust and the Registrar be directed to register it as a Public Trust. He claimed that there was a house No. 13 in Municipal Halka No. 3, Parade Bazar, Shriganj, Bhind, detailed in para 1 of the plaint. This house belonged to Chhabiram S/o. Chokhe Lal Jain, who died on 10-6-1917 and his heirs Prem Chand and others are still alive. He however gave this property for the construction of Dharmshala to one Ayodhya Prasad S/o. Pyare Lal Jain, R/o. Bhind, Mohalla Shriganj. Hence Ayodhya Prasad went in possession. On 15-12-1949, Ayodhya Prasad executed a document and expressed his desire that he would construct a Dharmshala for the travellars. In that document, he also expressed his desire to construct a Dharmshala during his life time and after his death, he appointed Trustees, namely; Suba Saheb, Babu Rameshwar Dayalji Mehrotra, Advocate, Sahu Jwala Prasad Ji Barohiwale, Sahu Bhagchand Ji Barohiwale and Sahu Lal Jai Narayan Ji Jain Ridoli Wale Saraf. He had also made arrangement for the management of the Dharmshala. This document dated 15-12-1949 was in the shape of will. It was signed by witnesses and was got registered. It was the last will. He did not execute any will thereafter. He started the work of construction of Dharmshala during his life time. He also constructed six shops towards north in order to have income for the management of the Dharmshala. Thereafter he died on 1st November, 1957 and the construction of the whole of the Dharmshala could not be completed. The original defendant Harbo Bai lived with Ajudhya Prasad and he used to maintain her. He had made an arrangement in the will that after his death, she will get Rs. 20/- p.m. during her life time from the income of the Dharmshala and will live in the Dharmshala for life. After the death of Ajudhya Prasad, she took possession over the entire property of the trust and used to take the income of the shops and house of the trust which amounted to Rs. 300/- p.m. The property was not being used as Dharmshala. The plaintiff claimed he being a citizen of Bhind and belonging to the sect of Ajudhya Prasad had an interest in the trust property, hence he moved an application under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act before the Registrar, Public Trust, Bhind, that the Trust be got registered. The application was contested by the defendant and she claimed that it was not the property of the trust. She produced a certified copy of the will dated 13-11-1956 and claimed that the will dated 15-12-1949 had been revoked. The plaintiff alleged that the will dated 13-11-1956 was forged and fictitious. Later on, the plaint was amended and it was specifically pleaded that the will dated 13-11-1956 was forged and fictitious. It was got prepared by Laturi Lal, who was the son-in-law of the defendant (now deceased) and husband of defendant Longabai. The Registrar did not give any finding with respect to the will dated 13-11-1956 whether it was forged or not and observed that it can be decided by a competent Court. He also observed that on the basis of will dated 13-11-1956, the will dated 15-12-1949 has been revoked. He, therefore, in the end observed that in relation to the disputed property, there is no Trust and it is not the property of the trust. As such, the application was rejected on 14-7-69. The findings of the Registrar were wholly illegal. Feeling aggrieved, a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was presented before this Court, but it was rejected on 28-8-1989 with the observation that the plaintiff had a right to institute a suit under Section 8 of the M. P. Public Trust Act, hence this suit.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, both the original plaintiff and defendant i.e. Ashok Kumar and Harbo Bai died and their LRs were brought on record. The Collector and the Registrar, Public Trust, were also impleaded.