GOSHIR GYALTSAB RINPOCHE Vs. KARMAPA CHARITABLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Petitioner herein (Defendant No. 3 in Title Suit No. 1 of 2017) seeks to assail the order of the learned District Judge, Special Division I, Sikkim at Gangtok dated 09.11.2017. Vide the said Order, the learned Court rejected the petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for dismissal of the suit on grounds stated therein.

(2.) Before proceeding further, for clarity, it may be stated that the original Plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 40 of 1998 filed on 31.07.1998 were (1) Karmapa Charitable Trust (Respondent No. 1 herein), (2) T.S. Gyaltsen, (3) Kunzing Shamar Rinpoche and (4) Gyan Jyoti Kansakar. The original Plaintiffs No. 2, 3 and 4 are since deceased. The Plaintiff No. 2 is substituted by his son as also Respondent No. 4, Respondent No. 3 was a celibate monk hence none substitutes him. The Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 herein are the Plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 4 in the Title Suit now renumbered as Title Suit No. 1 of 2017. The Defendant No. 1 (State of Sikkim) and Defendant No. 2 (Secretary, Ecclesiastical Affairs, Government of Sikkim), in the Title Suit No. 1 of 2017, are the Respondents No. 4 and 5 herein. The Petitioner herein is the Defendant No. 3 in the said Title Suit. The parties shall be referred to in their order of appearance in the instant Revision Petition.

(3.) The arguments of Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Anmole Prasad for the Petitioner, before this Court, pivoted around the contention that due to the occurrence of certain events that transpired subsequent to the filing of the suit, the Respondents No. 2 and 3 have lost the locus standi to continue with the suit on their own admission as would be evident from the averments made in their plaint. The Respondents have clearly conceded that the Trust would automatically become functus officio upon the reincarnated Karmapa viz. the 17th Gyalwa Karmapa, attaining the age of 21 years at which point he would become the sole Trustee. That the rival contentions reveal the admission of the adverse parties that the sole Trustee has re-incarnated, been identified and attained the age of 21 after the institution of the suit. This occurrence has been brought to the notice of the Court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, hence the Court cannot turn a blind eye to such an event. To buttress this submission, reliance was placed on Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor & General Traders, 1975 1 SCC 770. That in this circumstance, continuing with the suit would be like flogging a dead horse. On this count, strength was drawn from J.M. Biswas vs. N.K. Bhattacharjee and Others, 2002 4 SCC 68. That in such event, this suit would not survive in the name of the Respondent No. 1 for the reason that no suit can be instituted or continued in the sole name of a Trust as a Trust is not a juristic person. While assailing the impugned order, it was averred that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the future Trustees were entitled to act as such only till the 17th Gyalwa Karmapa attained the age of 21 years and the admission of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 that the reincarnation of the 17th Karmapa had attained the age of 21. Besides, the petition was misconstrued as being an invitation to embark upon the controversy regarding the recognition of the 17th Karmapa. That, the cross-examination of the witnesses has established that the sole Trustee had not only reincarnated but attained the age of 21 which fact could not be brought on record in 2006 without recording evidence. Hence, the Trustees being functus officio the suit would not survive in the name of the Respondent No. 1, a Trust which is not a juristic person. Thus, the impugned order be set aside and quashed and the reliefs prayed for in the petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be allowed.