LexPUBLIC TRUST SHRI GEETA SATSANG BHAWAN versus NAND LAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 329 PUBLIC TRUST SHRI GEETA SATSANG BHAWAN A v. NAND LAL & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3034 of2008) JULY25,2017 B [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABliAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959: s. 29 - Bar under - Scope of - Suit for eviction - Filed by public Trust - Decreed by trial court - First appellate court set C aside the decree on the ground that the suit was not competent for want of registration of the Trust, in view of the bar contained in s. 29 - Order of first appellate court was confirmed in second appeal by High Court - Appeal to Supreme Court - During pendency of appeal plaintiff-Trust got itself registered under the Act - Held: s. D 29 creates a bar ''.for hearing and deciding a suit" and not for filing a suit - A suit can be filed by unregistered Trust, but such suit can neither be heard nor decided unless and until the Trust is registered - S.29, therefore, operat.es as stay of proceedings in the suit, so long as the Trust does not get itself registered under the Act - The plaintiff-Trust acquired the right to prosecute the suit, after it E got registered - The suit is restored to be deciJed afresh on merits by the trial court. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:l. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/plaintiff - Trust was not a registered public Trust under the Act on the date F of filing the civil suit. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant- plaintiff, therefore, got the Trust registered as required under the Act only on 07.02.2013 during the pendency of this appeal. [Para 19)(334-GJ 2. Section 29 of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 creates a G bar "for hearing and deciding a suit" filed by the public Trust for enforcement of any of their rights, if the said Trust is not registered under the Act. The bar, therefore, applies for "hearing and deciding" a suit and not in filing tht:_ suit. In other words, suit H 329 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A can b1~ filed by the unregistered Trust but such suit will neither be heard nor decided by the Court unless and until the Trust is registered under the Act. Section 29, therefore, operates as stay of proceedings in the suit so long as the Trust does not get itself registered under the Act. [Para 211[335-CI B 3. A fortorari, the moment the Trust is registered under the Act, the Trial Court would assume the jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit on merits. The bar created under Section 29 of the Act for "hearing and deciding" the suit is then lifted and ceases to apply to the proceedings in the suit. [Para 221[335-DI c 4. Since the appellant (plaintiff) -Trust was registered under the Act on 07.02.2013, they acquired a right to prosecute the suit on merits against the respondents. The bar created under Section 29 then would no longer operate to the proceedings in the suit. [Para 231[335-EJ D 5. The Trial Court was, therefore, wholly unjustified in proceeding to hear and decide the suit on merits by passing a judgment/decree. It failed to see the rigor of Section 29 which had taken away the jurisdiction of the Trial Court in hearing and deciding the suit. The decree passed by the Trial Court is without jurisdiction and has to be set aside. Similarly, the first Appellate E Court and the High Court also erred in straightaway dismissing the appellant's suit. Having held and indeed rightly that the Trust was unregistered, instead of deciding the appeal and dismissing the suit should have stayed the proceedings by granting some reasonable time to the appellant/plaintiff-Trust to get their Trust p registered under the Act. If despite granting time, the Trust had failed to obtain the Registration Certificate then in such eventuality, the first Appellate Court could have dismissed the suit. [Paras 24, 25 and 28)(335-F-H; 336-DI 6. Now that the appellant/plaintiff has obtained the G necessary registration certificate in relation to their Trust under the Act, which is also taken on record, their suit can now be heard and decided on merits by the Trial Court. The bar operating under Section 29 of the Act for hearing and deciding the suit would no longer apply to the suit and the Civil Court would now assume jurisdiction to try the suit on merits. While setting aside the H PUBLIC TRUST SHRI GEETA SATSANG BHAWAN v. NAND 331 LAL impugned order and also of the first appellate court and the trial A court, the civil suit is restored to its fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.