PRAHLAD SHARMA Vs. ASHARFI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved against the order dated December 21, 2015 (Annexure P-22) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated November 07, 2015 (Annexure P-17) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby an application filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'Code') was allowed to the extent that the operation of order dated August 18, 2015, vide which respondent No. 2-Mahinder Sharma-trustee was removed from Jan Hit Sewa Charitable Trust (for brevity of 'Trust') shall remain stayed during the pendency of the suit, petitioner-Prahlad Sharma has preferred the instant revision petition.

(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details, facts necessary for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that vide Trust Deed dated June 02, 1989, Shri Shambhu Dayal Shastri formulated a Trust known as Jan Hit Sewa Charitable Trust as a sole trustee. During his lifetime, Shri Shambhu Dayal Shahtri appointed plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 1 as whole life trustees of the Trust. In addition thereto, he also appointed R.D. Sharma and Govind Vaswani as additional trustees for a period of three years. Subsequently, vide supplementary Trust Deed dated April 27, 2015, plaintiff No. 1-Asharfi Devi was appointed as Patron for life of the Trust, whereas, plaintiff No. 2-Mahinder Sharma and defendant No. 1-Prahlad Sharma-petitioner were appointed as executive trustees for life with equal rights. It has been alleged by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1/petitioner in connivance with his co-defendants has been working against the aim and object of the Trust by involving himself in misdeeds. He accompanied by large number of his supporters barged into Ashram intimidating them. He also succeeded in obtaining their thumb impressions on blank letter head papers by putting them under duress and coercion. Those papers can be misused by defendant No. 1 as per his convenience. Moreover, some other complaints were also lodged with the police against various acts and conduct of defendant No. 1. However, plaintiff No. 1 was compelled to withdraw one of the complaints lodged by her against defendant No. 1 and his accomplices. The Trust Deed dated April 27, 2015 was duly executed and signed by plaintiff No. 2 as well as defendant No. 1 but pursuant thereto, defendant No. 1/petitioner did not take any step for implementation thereof. Rather, defendant No. 1 without taking the plaintiffs in confidence and without their consent, executed another supplementary Trust Deed dated July 03, 2015 in connivance with other trustees nullifying the Trust Deed dated April 27, 2015. Defendant No. 1/petitioner issued show cause notice dated August 09, 2015 to plaintiff No. 2-Mahinder Sharma on the pretext of meeting of Board of trustees allegedly held on August 05, 2015. However, plaintiff No. 2 was never served with any notice of the said meeting. The show cause notice dated August 09, 2015 was replied by plaintiff No. 2 on August 24, 2015. But prior to that, impugned order dated August 18, 2015 was passed by defendant No. 1, whereby plaintiff No. 2-Mahinder Sharma was removed from the Trust and it was also published in the local newspaper. The alleged removal of plaintiff No. 2 from the Trust is absolutely in violation and infringement of amended Trust Deed dated April 27, 2015. In fact, defendant No. 1 in collusion with other defendants is siphoning the Trust money which is against the aim and object of the Trust. Accordingly, plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 were constrained to institute the suit challenging the order dated August 18, 2015 and further by way of an application moved under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code sought issuance of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from implementing the Trust Deed dated July 03, 2015; executing the operation of the impugned order dated August 18, 2015 passed by defendant No. 1; and restraining the defendants for using social banners and posters for the promotion of various Trust without asserting them as a part thereof.

(3.) Upon notice of the suit as well as injunction application, defendants filed written statement as well as reply to injunction application. It has been asserted by the defendants that suit is not maintainable on account of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Trust; that defendants No. 5 to 8 have been unnecessarily dragged in the litigation; that plaintiff No. 1 has no cause of action against any of the defendants; that plaintiffs have concealed and suppressed the true and real facts while filing the suit; and that impugned order dated August 18, 2015 has been passed by the Trust by adopting due procedure required for removal of a trustee. It has further been averred in the reply that plaintiff No. 2 was served with a show cause notice on August 09, 2015, which was responded on August 24, 2015. But on August 17, 2015, Board of trustees passed a resolution regarding removal of plaintiff No. 2 from the Trust where after, order dated August 18, 2015 was passed against him. Plaintiff No. 2 was well aware and had full knowledge of notice dated August 09, 2015 as well as the action being taken on August 13, 2015 when he communicated to the trustees that he will not attend the meeting to be convened on August 17, 2015. Trust Deed dated April 27, 2015 stood nullified vide another modified Trust Deed dated July 03, 2015, which was passed in view of resolution dated July 01, 2015. The requisite notice of meeting dated July 01, 2015 was given to both the plaintiffs. In pursuance thereof, they also attended the said meeting but subsequently, they left the venue of the meeting. It has further been averred in the reply that in a meeting of the Trust held on October 30, 2004, a resolution was passed with regard to procedure to be adopted for disqualifying the trustee and for removal of the trustee from the Trust. The founder of the Trust (which is a public charitable Trust) was taken away by the nature in the month of May, 2007. However, prior to his demise, on April 23, 2007, defendant No. 1/petitioner was appointed as successor of sole trustee namely Sh. Shambhu Dayal Shastri on June 04, 2007. He was entrusted with affairs of the Trust being in that position, defendant No. 1 was competent to appoint or remove any attorney or lawyer on behalf of the Trust and he was only person competent to represent the Trust before Government authority. Plaintiff No. 2 siphoned a huge money of the Trust. Neither he accounted for nor deposited the money collected by way of 'DAN PATRAS' in the bank for a long period. It was only thereafter, by way of supplementary Trust Deed dated July 03, 2015, earlier Trust Deed dated April 27, 2015 was nullified, that too, in the presence of the plaintiffs. Thus, plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 especially plaintiff No. 2 has nothing to do with the Trust after his removal. Accordingly, defendant No. 1- petitioner prayed for dismissal of injunction application.