GIAN CHAND Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition assails the order of District Judge, Una, in Civil Misc, Application No. 47 of 1989, thereby dismissing the application of the petitioners under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue for the removal of existing trustees of a public charitable trust.

(2.) Briefly the case is that an application under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for the removal of the present trustees of the alleged charitable trust consisting of a Serai (Inn), Well and Chhabil (a stall for serving cold water to the travellers) situate in village Amb, District Una. It is -alleged that one Udham Singh son of Partap Singh, resident of village Amb constructed a Inn, dug a Well and set -up a Chhabil on the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1809, 1810, 1811 and 1941 situate in village Amb, District Una, sometime in the year 1927 -28. During the lifetime of Udham Singh, he himself was the trustee and upon his death, his two wives, namely, Smt. Barnial and Smt. Bijjarwal became the trustees. On their death, Smt. Balwant Devi, daughter of one of those widows, namely, Bijjarwal, became the trustee. She also died on November 7, 1980, where after, the respondents No. 1 to 6, being her sons, came in possession of the property of the trust. Further, the case is that initially the land was recorded as Shamlat Deh in the revenue papers. With the enforcement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, the Gram Panchayat was recorded as its owner in the revenue papers. Thereafter, on the commencement of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974, the name of the State of Himachal Pradesh was recorded as owner.

(3.) It is stated that the respondents, after coming in possession of the property, started demolishing the Inn and in its place shops are being constructed. The applicants further alleged that this act of the respondents amounts to misappropriation of the trust property and, therefore, they are liable to be removed from the trusteeship. With this end in view, an application under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved which has been contested by the respondents. Respondents No. 1 to 6, while opposing the application, have stated that the property was their private property and was inherited as such. It has also been stated that the applicants have no interest in the alleged trust and, therefore, they have no focus -standi to sue or even to ask for permission to sue.