DIGVIJAY Vs. KUNDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 11.1.1985, the appellant-defendant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) A brief resume of the facts is that Kundan Lal, maternal grandfather of the defendant-appellant by the dint of his hard labour became a wealthy person and was owning various immovable properties as well. He established Kundan Industrial and Technical Institute and Kundan Vidya Mandir to impart education to the masses of India and to make them efficient and skilled workers and also with a view to reduce unemployment and raise the general standard of living. During his life-time he executed a Will dated 7.11.1949 Ex.P/2 wherein he gave the details of all the assets owned by him. In this will he bequeathed his specified assets to his four daughters, their children and to his son on certain conditions. About the rest of the properties owned by him he established a Public Charitable Trust to be known as Kundan Lal Charitable Trust. Item No. 6 of the properties was the one which was partially used by Kundan Vidya Mandir (where a school was being run) and the remaining portion was demised to various persons to run shops etc. According to this Will Ex.P/2, Kundan Vidya Mandir was to form a part of the Charitable Trust as it was not allocated to any of the heirs. This will Ex.P.2 was followed by the execution of a regular trust deed Ex.P.1 which was executed by late Shri Kundan Lal on 1.4.1950. Kundan Lal executed his last Will on 10.9.1957. After this death there was a litigation between the heirs of Kundan Lal with regard to inheritance on the basis of the aforesaid two Wills and Kundan Lal Trust was also impleaded as a defendant therein. The suit was decreed on 19.1.1972. A copy of the judgment is Ex.DW8/1.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, 17 issues were framed by the trial Court. After recording the parties' evidence, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's, suit as Issue Nos. 4, 11 and 12 were decided against the plaintiffs and Issue Nos. 6 and 7 were decided against the defendant.