GHAT TALAB KAULAN WALA versus BABA GOPAL DASS CHELA SURTI DASS (DEAD) BY LR RAM NIWAS

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 602 · Decided: 31-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
602
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
GHAT TALAB KAULAN WALA
v.
BABA GOPAL DASS CHELA SURTI DASS (DEAD) BY LR
RAM NIWAS
(Civil Appeal No. 724 of 2020)
JANUARY 31, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s. 92 – Applicability of – To a suit by a Trust – Suit by Trust
for mandatory injuction – Seeking direction against the defendant
(sevadaar) to leave the management of the Mandir, building and
other properties of the Trust – Trial Court declined to grant
mandatory injuction to the defendant, but held that the plaintiff
was entitled to rendition of accounts – First appellate Court decreed
the suit – During pendency of second appeal, due to death of original
defendant impleadment of his representative – High Court held that
suit was not maintainable as requirements of s. 92 was not complied
with – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Section 92 contemplates
suit against a Trust – In the present case, the suit having been filed
by the Trust, the procedure prescribed under Section 92 would not
be applicable – The suit was maintainable and was rightly decreed
by First Appellate Court – Trust and Charities.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Section 92 of CPC contemplates a suit against a
Trust either for removing any trustee; appointing new trustee;
or vesting any property in a trustee etc. but the present suit itself
is by a Trust against a Sevadar, therefore, the procedure
prescribed under Section 92 of CPC would not be applicable in a
suit by a Trust.  Section 92 of CPC confers right on a person in
case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust
created for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature.
Since the Trust itself was the plaintiff, the finding of the High
Court is clearly erroneous and not sustainable.  [Para 12]
[608-A-B]
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 602
602
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
603
2. The fact is that the original defendant had been found to
be Sevadar as per statement (Ex.P/1) given in the previous suit
for permanent injunction.  Therefore, legal representative of the
original defendant will not have a larger interest than what was
vested in the original defendant.  The legal representative has
been found to be doing service to the Temple as a member of
public.  The High Court has affirmed the finding that the legal
representative could offer his services but he has not proved
that he was appointed as Chela of the original defendant. Still
further, the decree for rendition of accounts could be executed
only against the deceased original defendant, therefore, after his
demise, such decree cannot be executed.  Therefore, the suit is
maintainable and was rightly decreed by the First Appellate Court.
[Paras 12 & 13] [608-C-D]
3. The apprehension of the respondent that the amount of
compensation can be misused, is not tenable.  The appellant is a
registered Society. The appellant as a registered Society has
statutory obligations. Such apprehension is misconceived and
beyond the scope of the present suit and the appeal arising out of
such proceedings. [Para 14] [608-E-F]
Bhagwan Dass and Others v. Jairam Dass AIR 1965
P & H 260 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1965 P & H 260
referred to
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 724 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.
2263 of 1997.
V. N. Sinha, Sr. Adv., Puran Mal Saini, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Pati
Raj Yadav, Ritesh Patil, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Devender Mohan Verma, Ms.
Minakshi Vij, Advs. for the Respondent.
GHAT TALAB KAULAN WALA v. BABA GOPAL DASS CHELA
SURTI DASS (D) BY LR RAM NIWAS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
604
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The plaintiff is in appeal aggrieved against an order passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 18th July, 2016 whereby the
decree of two courts in its favour were set aside for the reason that
Charan Dass (PW-1) was not competent to file suit as it could not
demonstrate the nature of charities which the Trust had undertaken and
that such suit is not maintainable without complying with the requirements
of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081.  The Court held as
under:
“20.  For maintaining the suit qua public Trust, the leave of the
Court under Section 92 CPC is mandatory.  Pleadings of the
plaintiff are conspicuously silent about thes

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.