Pandey v. Shriman Panjiyak, Lok Nyas Raipur through State of Chhattisgarh, District Raipur

Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Richa Dwivedi, Advocate Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Panel Lawyer Mr. A.N. Bhakta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 30/09/2022

1. The present is the plaintiff’s second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Challenge is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009, passed in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/2009 passed by the 11th Additional District Judge (FTC) Raipur and also to the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2008 passed by the 12th Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 5/2006. Vide the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009 the First Appellate Court has rejected 2 the first appeal of the appellant affirming the judgment and decree by the trial Court dated 31.10.2008.

2. The facts of the case is that the plaintiff/appellant had moved an application before the respondent No.1-the Registrar, Public Trust for registering a Public Trust, which got rejected by the respondent No.1 on 13.07.2005 which led to the filing of the civil suit before the trial Court. The claim of the appellant was for declaring the Budheshwar Mahadev Temple at Mahamaya Mandir Ward, Raipur situated in khasra No. 1919 measuring 0.68 acre to be declared as a Public Trust. In addition to the aforesaid declaration, the plaintiff has also sought for an injunction restraining the respondent No.2 from interfering with the functioning of the aforesaid Budheshwar Mahadev Temple and the activities carried out by the Budheshwar Mahadev Temple Trust or its property.

3. The trial Court proceeded with the matter by registering it as civil suit No. 5/2006. The parties entered appearance and submitted their respective plaints, written statement and other pleadings, thereafter evidences were recorded. During the course of the evidence, it has been reflected that the respondent No.2 was already reflected as a registered Trust before the Registrar, Public Trust.

4. Further, one of the objects of the said respondent No.2-Trust was in respect of the maintenance of the Budheshwar Mahadev Temple. The Sub-Divisional Officer i.e. the Registrar, Public Trust at the concerned place taking into account the evidence which has come on record, particularly the fact that there was already a trust registered with the Registrar Trust for taking care and maintenance 3 of the Budheshwar Mahadev Temple, the suit filed by the plaintiff was registered. While rejecting the suit, the trial Court also gave a finding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was also barred by limitation. These two aspects were challenged by the appellants by way of first appeal before the First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 7-A/2009.

5. The First Appellate Court also taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence which have come on record have reached to the conclusion that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference and have affirmed the judgment and decree vide impugned judgment dated 15.05.2009. The First Appellate Court also while affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court gave a concurrent finding on the aspect that since there was already a Trust duly registered under the Public Trust Act and the object of the said already registered Trust was also the taking care and maintenance of the Budheshwar Mahadev Temple. The Appellate Court also was of the view that the subsequent application of the plaintiff for registration of a said Trust with the same object was not permissible and accordingly the first appeal stood rejected. It is these two judgment and decree which are under challenge in the instant second appeal.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the two Courts below failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 5 as also Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951. According to the learned senior counsel, it was the bounded duty of the Registrar to have first conducted an inquiry in terms of the conditions which are otherwise stipulated under Section 5 dealing with the 4 inquiry of the registration and only after due inquiry could the Registrar have taken an appropriate decision.

7. In the absence of which the decision of the Registrar refusing registration of the Trust on the application of the appellant was improper and contrary to law. It was the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.2 in fact was a society which ought to have got registered itself as a society under the Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Therefore this fact was not properly appreciated by the Registrar and therefore the rejection of the application of the plaintiff was bad in law. It was the further contention of the senior counsel that the rejection of the suit on the ground of limitation also is bad in law for the reason that the period of limitation as envisaged under sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act provides for 6 months period from the date of the passing order of the Registrar and the rejection order was dated 13.07.2005 and the suit was filed on 28.10.2005 and therefore it was within limitation and the finding of the trial Court affirmed by the First Appellate Court therefore is bad in law.

8. What is necessary to be taken note of at this juncture is that the contents of Section 8 of the aforementioned Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act. For ready reference Section 8 is reproduced hereinunder: “8. Civil suit against the finding of the Registrar. - (1) Any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property, aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar under Section 6 may, within six months from the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 7, institute a suit in a Civil Court to have such finding set aside or modified. (2) In every such suit, the Civil Court shall give notice to the State Government through the Registrar, and the 5 State Government, if it so desires, shall be made a party to the suit. (3) On the final decision of the suit, the Registrar shall, if necessary, correct the entries made in the register in accordance with such decision.”

9. From the plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparently clear that the period for filing of the suit against the finding of the Registrar is 6 months. However, the six months period mentioned would commence from the date of the publication of the notice under sub-section 1 of Section 7. Sub-section 1 of Section 7 require the Registrar, Public Trust to make necessary entries in the register in respect of the registration of a Trust. From the pleadings available in the records what is also reflected and which stands undisputed and unrebutted that the respondent No.2 undoubtedly is a registered Trust with one of the object being that of taking care of the aforementioned Budheshwar Mahadev Temple an also its maintenance. The said Trust has got registered on 30.09.1955. A document in this regard was also made available before the trial Court vide Exhibit P/16. It is this registration of the said Public Trust of respondent No.2 which was entered upon in the records by the Registrar under sub-section 1 of Section 7 and therefore for all practical purposes, the limitation for filing of the suit would have started from the date of the entries made by the Registrar so far as the registration of the respondent No.2-Trust, which was somewhere around year 1955-56.

10. The instant suit has been filed only on 28.10.2005. The claimants seek for the calculation of limitation from the date of their application for registration of a Trust stood rejected, whereas the provision of law does not envisage the rejection of an application for registration 6 of a Trust to be the commencing point of the period of limitation, whereas it is 6 months period from the date of publication of the entries made by the Registrar under sub-section 1 of Section 7. There is no dispute whatsoever of the appellant knowing the existence of the respondent No.2-Trust. There is also no dispute of the facts that the appellant knew the status of the respondent No.2 to be that of a registered trust, as there was earlier also certain disputes and litigations which had arisen between the same parties and the status of the respondent No.2 as a Public Trust in the said litigation was also reflected and the plaintiffs were well aware of the said fact. Yet they chose to file the civil suit only on 28.10.2005.

11. Given the said fact the issue of limitation as decided by the trial Court and which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court does not seem to be in any manner unreasonable or bad in law. Moreover, what is also proved and established from the facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs, undoubtedly the respondent No.2 has registered itself as a Public Trust. One of the objects of the said Trust is also in respect of the taking care of and maintenance of the said Budheshwar Mahadev Temple. The status of the respondent No.2 inspite of the plaintiff being fully aware of it has not been questioned by the plaintiffs at any point of time whatsoever, neither is the registration of the respondent No.2-Trust ever challenged before any statutory or legal authority and as stated earlier the status of the respondent No.2 as a registered Public Trust is not in dispute.

12. Under the circumstances, the Registrar could not have allowed the application of the appellant for being declared as a Public Trust 7 under the Public Trust Act for an object for which there already existed a Public Trust duly registered before the Registrar. Given the fact that there is a concurrent finding of fact by the two Courts below on the said aspect, this Court does not find any strong case made out worth admitting the second appeal. The second appeal therefore deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. Ved Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge