KANHAIYA LAL KHATAK Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed by Kanhaiya Lal Khatak, plaintiff, against the order dated 8-12-1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby he had allowed the appeal of defendants-Manohar Lal and others against the order dated 15-6-1999 of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, allowing the application of the plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal Khatak, under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for restraining the defendants from naming the charitable eye hospital at Faridabad after the name of the trustee or his nominee.

(2.) Plaintiff Kanhaiya Lal Khatak filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-Manohar Lal and others. It was alleged in the plaint that there was a trust created by Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj of District Bannu, now in west Pakistan and the plaintiff was one of the trustees of the said trust. On 2/04/1992 the defendants had passed illegally and wrongfully a resolution whereby the plaintiff was illegally and arbitrarily removed from the Trust. Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj of District Bannu had bequeathed, by way of registered Will, which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bannu on 3-5-1945, the entire of his properties to the Trust for establishing a Gurudwara and had specifically laid down that the trustees should be the persons who have faith in holy Sri Guru Granth Sahib and follow its scriptures. The followers of Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj of District Bannu, who had migrated to Faridabad, consequent upon the partition of the country, were to carry out the work of the Trust in accordance with the wishes of Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj. Trust had left movable and immovable property in Pakistan and after the partition of the country the trustees started the activities of setting up of a Gurudwara in New Industrial Township in Faridabad. Land was allotted to the Trust by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India through Shri Sudhir Ghosh, Administrator of the Faridabad Development Board, for the purpose of erecting a Gurudwara and Musafir Khana. Thereafter, through contributions and donations by the public at large who were owing allegiance to the Sikh faith and Late Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj, a Gurudwara along with Musafir Khana was constructed. The property situated at the site known as Trust Dera Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj, Bannuwale, N.H.-1, N.I.T., Faridabad, is physically a Gurudwara and all the assets of the Gurudwara vest in the Trust. None of the trustees can treat the Trust property as his personal property or the property of any of his families. Trustees kept on functioning normally and of late the income of the Gurudwara rose to Rs.70,000.00. Manohar Lal etc. became afflicted with greed and they set their eyes on the properties of the Trust. No trustee in his personal or individual capacity can use or misuse the Trust property in his name or in the name of any of the members of his family. Plaintiff had objected to the trustees projecting the members of their families in the Gurudwara as religious figures, whereas, according to Sikh Tenets no living person can be equated with any of the ten Gurus and the holy Sri Guru Granth Sahib. Plaintiff started objecting to the defendants trying to convert the Gurudwara into one of a Dera for their personal purposes. He was disassociated as a trustee by passing an illegal and arbitrary resolution dated 2-4-1992. The suit of the plaintiff was challenged by the defendants. Ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff which continued.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed praying that defendants be restrained from opening a hospital and naming it"Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye-Hospital" or naming it after the name of some trustee or his relative, in the Gurudwara premises. It was stated that the defendants tied a banner in front of the Gurudwara premises wherein they had contemplated to open a Charitable Eye-Hospital in the name of Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye-Hospital in the Gurudwara premises. Plaintiff objected and requested the defendants not to use the Gurudwara as a personal institution which is a religious place and vested in the community at large. Late Mehar Chand was father of Manohar lal, defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 had an evil eye on the Gurudwara and other properties of the Trust - Dera Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj Bannuwale, N.H.-1, N.I.T., Faridabad, Defendant No. 1, Manohar Lal, in order to show to public at large and project his own image had decided to open an eye hospital in the name of his father. In case, the defendants succeed in opening the eye hospital in the name of the father of the defendant in Gurudwara, it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. In nutshell, what the plaintiff wanted was that they should remain the property of the Trust known as Dera Sant Bhagat Singh Ji Maharaj, Bannuwale, N.H.-1, N.I.T., Faridabad and that there should be no effort by any of the trustees to perpetuate his own memory or the memory of any member of his family with the use of the Trust property and that Gurudwara should remain the property of the Community at large and that no one should treat the Gurudwara as his personal property and Gurudwara should run strictly in accordance with Sikh faith (Gurmaryada). Plaintiff prayed for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from opening any eye hospital or any other hospital in the name of the defendants or in the name of any member of their family. Defendants opposed this application urging that Trust is being run for charitable purposes in true letter and spirit for which it was set up in the beginning. Orders passed by the appellate Court have authorised the trustees to take decision by majority. The trustees want to open a charitable eye hospital in the name of Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital meant for the public at large. In the meeting of the Trust also on 11-6-1999 in which plaintiff was also present, it was unanimously decided to open Bhagat Mehar Chand Charitable Eye Hospital. The plaintiff who deliberated the meeting and agreed to the decision, refused to sign the resolution. Vide order dated 15-6-1999, temporary injunction was allowed to the plaintiff restraining the defendants from naming the hospital after their own name or after the name of any of the members of their family. Opening of the charitable eye hospital was, however, not stayed.