BHOLA PRASAD SAH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner along with Opposite Party no. 3 and others formed a trust under the name and style of 'Foundation- Life for All' with a view to establish, promote, maintain and grant financial assistance to hospitals and other medical institutions providing medical relief to the general public and other benevolent works. The trust, in furtherance of its objectives, took control of a High School in Bihar where wife of Opposite Party no. 3 was appointed as a teacher, allegedly, without approval of the board of trustees. Later on, the trust took up the project of starting a CBSE programme which was accomplished with setting up a CBSE school in Sankraili, in Bihar. It was alleged that with the setting up of the said school, the earlier project of Shri Manna Lal Sah Harijan High school ought to have been closed but the wife of Opposite Party no. 3 continued with the said school, rather they allegedly closed the CBSE school.

(2.) The opposite parties are also alleged to have purchased immoveable properties out of the fund of the trust but they did not take any steps to get the said properties mutated in the name of the trust. Rather, the said properties purchased out of the fund of the trust, were illegally mutated in the name of Opposite Party no 3. Not only that, the properties purchased by the trust were utilised by Opposite Party no. 3 and others without any authority in this regard and the usufructs were never credited to the trust. Opposite Party no 3 is also alleged to have sold certain properties belonging to the trust without any authority. He along with other trustee ignored his responsibilities to get the properties of the trust mutated in its name. Opposite Party no 3 was also directed to hand over the title deeds to one Amit Aggarwal, whereas Opposite Party no 2 was asked to provide closing balance to the Chartered Accountant, Abhishek Kedia for the purpose of internal audit. However, Opposite Party no 3 in connivance with Opposite Party no 2 acted against the interest of the trust and the requisite documents were never provided. For the aforesaid reasons, Katihar (s) PS case No.464 of 2017 u/s 406/420/468/471/120B IPC was initiated against Opposite Party no 3.

(3.) The petitioner was authorised to take legal action to obtain account of the trust properties together with that for recovery of the title documents. The petitioner, accordingly, initiated another case being Katihar (S) P.S. case No. 838 of 2017 u/s 323/406.420/468/471 IPC against Opposite Party no. 3 for the alleged execution of a forged and false deed of gift in favour of Anand Marg. Initially the Opposite Party no 3 is said to have agreed to vacate the house owned by the present petitioner but later on, Opposite Party no 3 came up with the purported false and forged deed of gift allegedly executed by the father of the petitioner and Opposite Party no 3, Late Manna Lal Sah. On the contrary, Opposite Party no 3 has filed some civil suits with a view to remain in continued possession of the gifted properties.