NARAYANDAS Vs. REGISTRAR PUBLIC TRUSTS BILASPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 27 (3) of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 96 of the Civil P. C. against the order passed by the Additional District Judge under Section 27 of the Act holding that the appellant has no claim to the office of Mahant of Shri Jagannathji Public Trust, Champa, and he be divested of the scheduled properties of the said trust in his possession and he is further restrained from interfering with the affairs of the trust.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute are that sometime in the year 1889 (Samvat 1945) Premsingh, the then Zamindar of Champa, had created a trust on 3 12-1954 now called Temple Shri Jagannathji Public Trust. In the premises of the said trust there is also an idol of Shri Ramchandraji and other idols. On 3010-1953 Mahant Ramcharandas, who called himself Pujari and Sarbarakar (Manager) of the temple, applied for registration of the public trust under Section 4 of the Act In his application, he disclosed that the office of the trustee (which he called working trustee) devolved by inheritance from the founder and the manager was appointed by the trustee. In due course, an enquiry was made and ultimately the trust was registered and relevant entries were made in register prescribed by the Act showing that the office of the trustee was to go by inheritance from the founder. The said Mahant Ramcharandas died on 28-71959. Thereupon, in September 1959 the trustee Rani Upman Kumari Devi appointed respondent No. 3 Salharoo Prasad as Pujari and Sarbara-kar of the trust. She also made an application under Section 9 for correction of the entry in the register by substituting the name of Salharoo Prasad in placa of Mahant Ramcharandas. The application was contested by the appellant. By order dated 23-2-1961 the Registrar upheld the right of the trustee to appoint Pujari and Sarbarakar for the trust, directed the relevant entry be corrected and ordered that the property belonging to the trust be placed in possession of Salharoo Prasad. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed Civil Suit No. 1-A of 1961 in the Court of IIIrd Addition District Judge, Bilaspur. However, he withdrew the suit on 4-9-1961. The appellant then filed Misc. Petition No, 279/61 calling in question the order of the Registrar dated 23-2-1961. By order dated 8-1-1962 the petition was partly allowed on the short ground that the provisions of the Act did not empower the Registrar to interfere with possession of trust property by a person like Mahant Narayandas who himself claimed to be entitled to manage it. On 18-1-1962 the Registrar made an application under Section 26 (2) of the Act praying that the appellant be removed from his office as a trustee de son tort which office he has usurped and he be ejected from the pro-perties of the public trust and Rani Upman Kumari Devi be placed in possession. The application was opposed by the appellant who also filed an application under Section 26 of the Act with a request that the matters raised therein be also forwarded to the Civil Court for order. It appears that thereafter proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr. P. C. were started between the parties and ultimately Rani Upman Kumari Devi was placed in possession of the trust property and the order was maintained in revision by this Court. The Additional District Judge by his order dated 7-8-1967 rejected the application of the Registrar while allowing the application of the appellant holding that there existed another public trust, that is a Math at Champa, and the temple of Jagan-nathji with the property dedicated to it was the part of this Math. The appellant was entitled to succeed Ramcharandas as Mahant of the Math, being Chela of Ramcharandas and further in view of the will made by Ramcharandas. As such, the appellant was entitled to continue in possession of the trust property. In appeal, this Court by its order dated 8-10-1968 reversed most of the findings of Addl. District Judge and remanded the case back to the trial Court with a direction for a fresh decision in accordance with law with advertence to the observations made in the remand order. This Court was of the opinion that the remand was necessary because no finding was given by the trial Court as to whether there were circumstances which entitled the Registrar to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Act (wrongly mentioned as Section 27). Thereafter, the learned Addl. District Judge after hearing the parties has given a fresh decision holding that Kumar Rud-rasharan Singh as successor of Rani Upman Kumari Devi is the trustee of the said public trust and he has right to manage the trust property. It was further held that the appellant has no claim to the office of Mahant of the said public trust and he be divested of the trust properties in Ms possession which he delivered to the nominee of the trustee.

(3.) The Registrar in his application under Section 26 (2) of the Act had submitted that the temple of Shri Jagannathji was registered as a public trust under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act by the Registrar, Public Trusts, Bilaspur, and the public trust, the temple of Jagganathji, includes 2 Maths and temple of Shri Ramchandraji and other idols. The temple premises were popularly known as Math though they were not so in the accepted legal sense. He further submitted that appellant Mahant Narayandas is an imposter and a trespasser on the properties of the public trust. He has been mismanaging the properties of the public trust and misusing its funds. He has also been threatening to take forcible possession of the Matha and the temples and to interfere with their management. As such the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of the public trust. Narayandas has usurped the management of some of the trust properties and is unauthorisedly managing them resulting in the failure of the trust. He is mismanaging and misappropriating the trust property. He is indulging in these acts under claim of trusteeship. He is, thus, a trustee de son tort. The Registrar, therefore, prayed that the appellant be removed from his office as a trustee de son tort which office he has usurped and he be ejected from the properties of the public trust and Rani Upman Kumari Devi or her nominee be placed in possession thereof. A further declaration be given that the trust shall be administered only by the working trustee or by her nominee. He also prayed that a permanent injunction be issued restraining the appellant from interfering with the affairs of the trust.