SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. NAGAR KESHARWANI VAISHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that on a reference made by Registrar under section 26 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act to the District Judge, the learned District Judge vide his order dated 16.8.2007 granted interim charge of the property to the respondents No. 2 and 3 and refused to recall the order and committed an illegality in rejecting the review application vide another dated 3.9.2007.

(2.) DURING course of the arguments it was submitted that respondents No. 2 and 3 are caretakers of the property under the arrangement made by the District Judge but they are exercising their powers as owners of the property and have started demolishing the property in dispute.

(3.) SHRI Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 on the other hand submitted that the respondents, for upkeep and betterment of the property and for its development, had demolished a part of it but if this Court feels that they are not entitled to proceed with any demolition or construction, the said respondents No. 2 and 3 shall not do any such act either personally or through any agency.