SHAM LAL Vs. GOPAL DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, vide which the application filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Section 92, C.P.C. permitting them to file the suit for the removal of defendant Nos. 1 to 10 from the office-bearers/trustees of defendant No. 11, has been allowed.

(2.) THE primary grouse of the petitioner is that the learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order had wrongly permitted the plaintiffs to sue defendant Nos. 1 to 10 under Section 92 of the C.P.C. for their removal as Managers/office-bearers of the trust as the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit and that defendant No. 11 was not a trust created for public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. In support of his contention, Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 707 and Mahant Amar Nath v. Millakh Raj and others, 1996(1) Civil Court Cases 578 (P&H).

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the case law cited by the learned counsel appearing on both the sides, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. At the stage of allowing the plaintiffs to file the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. against the defendants, the Court is required to see only two things : viz. (i) whether the trust property is meant for public purpose of charitable or religious nature; and (ii) whether the suit has been filed by two or more persons having interest in the trust. If prima facie these two things are proved, then the necessary permission to sue the defendants can be given by the Court. In order to prove that defendant No. 11 was trust, the plaintiffs brought to the notice of the Court the judgment dated 10.11.1948 passed by Shri Jagdish Narain Kapur, the then Sub-Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, in which defendant No. 11 has been shown as Trust. There is another application dated 12.8.1971 filed in the case titled Lachhman Dass and another v. General Public, wherein prayer had been made for appointment of trustees. In another application No. 76 dated 17.1.1972 decided by Smt. Bakshish Kaur, the then Sub-Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, wherein prayer was made for removal of the defendants from the executive committee on the allegations levelled against them. There are also certain resolutions dated 16.8.1970, 20.9.1970, 1.11.1970 and many other documents wherein defendant No. 11 has been shown as Trust. Thus it stood amply proved that defendant No. 11 was a trust and not a registered society, as alleged by the defendant-petitioner. The other condition is that the suit must be filed by two or more persons having an interest in the trust. In the preliminary objections filed by the defendants, Gopal Das, plaintiff No. 1 has been alleged to be the ex-Manager of the trust. It shows that Gopal Dass, plaintiff No. 1, had some interest in the Trust, that is why he was elected as Manager. The plaintiffs have also alleged in the plaint that they had been giving offerings to the Trust and copies of four receipts had been placed on record to prove this fact. In para No. 9 of the plaint it has been alleged that the plaintiffs are worshippers of Thakurdwara Bal Bawa. Thus, it was proved that the plaintiffs had interest in the Trust in question. In the case reported as S.K.S. Rangaacharyulu and another v. Kailash Vyas and others, 1998(2) Civil Court Cases 285, it has been held by the Rajasthan High Court that at the time of granting leave the Court has only to see the allegations in the plaint. Thus, at this stage the Court had only granted permission to the plaintiffs to sue the defendants on the basis of the allegations levelled in the plaint. If after evidence, it is found that a breach of trust, as alleged, has not been made out and the prayer of the applicant is vague and is not based on solid foundation of facts or reasons, then the suit will be dismissed. But at this stage it cannot be said that the permission granted by the trial Court to sue the defendants is wrong. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition as there is no infirmity in the order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.