KRISHEN KUMAR KHOSA Vs. KRISHEN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under section 34 of the Trusts Act it has been stated that in the city of Poonch a Dharamshalla known as Waziri Deni Sahiba Dharamshalla exists and with this Dharamshalla large chunks of land and other immoveable property was attached. A school was also being run by the trust of which Bhai Dharam Dutt was the Managing trustee and sole patron. Shri Bhai Dharam Dutt was known as Shri Guru Maharaj. He passed away on 9-5-1978. By a will dated 23-4-1972 Shri Guru Maharaj had appointed Shri Krishen Lal, respondent No. 1 as his successor but this will was revoked by him on 17-8- 1975. It was on 21-11-1977 that Shri Guru Maharaj executed a document in favour of the petitioner appointing him Mohatamim of the Trust superseding all previous appointments and documents executed in this behalf by him. Under this document Shri Guru Maharaj provided that the petitioner was to be the Managing head and patron temporarily till another Managing trustee was appointed according to the terms of the document. Also a committee to manage the affairs of the trust was appointed. The document further stated that the petitioner will surrender his rights to the permanent Managing trustee who shall be so appointed later. There were some ether recitals made in the deed. In direct contravention of the contents of this document, the petitioner states, that after the death of Sri Guru Maharaj, respondents 1 and 2 have forcibly taken over the possession of the property of the trust and usurped the functioning of the petitioner, as well as of the Managing Committee. It is further alleged that respondent No. 1 has set himself up as the male heir trustee of Shri Guru Maharaj which he could not have done in view of the document executed by Shri Guru Maharaj on 21-11-1977. Under the circumstances it has become difficult for the petitioner to discharge the duties and functions entrusted to him under the document executed by Shri Guru Maharaj. In para 19 of the petition, it has been specifically prayed that this court may give a declaration to the effect that :

(2.) MR . R.P. Bakshi filed objections on behalf of respondents 1, 6 and 7. He raised many objections and inter alia stated that the petition is not maintainable as the same had to be filed under section 34 of the Trusts Act in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which in the instant case was the Court of District Judge, Poonch. His second preliminary objection was that the petitioner not being a trustee has no locus standi to file an application under section 34 of the Trusts Act. His third objection was that the petition was not maintainable as the same was not filed for seeking opinion, advice, direction from the court regarding any present question for management or administration of the trust property. It was further stated in the objections that from a mere perusal of the contents of the petition, it would be apparent that what the petitioner was seeking was neither advice nor direction nor opinion but he was seeking the removal of respondent No. 1 from the management and trustship of the trust property, which could act be done under section 34 of the Trusts Act. It was further stated in the objections that questions of detail, difficulty and importance being involved in the petition, the same could not be entertained under the provisions of the Trusts Act.

(3.) THE first objection raised was that Section 34 of the Trusts Act envisages a petition being submitted in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and in this case that court was the court of the District Judge, Poonch. It was contended by Mr. Bakshi that Section 34 of the Trusts Act specifically lays down a forum for consideration of such petitions and by implication it would mean that no other forum would have the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 34 of the Trusts Act. For the sake of convenience Section 34 of the Trusts Act is reproduced below :