Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21488 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FAM No. 63 of 2018 1 - Prafful Chand Agrawal S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Aged About 50 Years R/o In Front Of Shri Ramchandra Swami Nagridas Mandir, Saraswati Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Yogendra Kumar Tamrakar, Advocate S/o Bhagwati Prasad Tamrakar Aged About 54 Years R/o Saraswati Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramesh Yadu S/o Kartikram Yadu Aged About 52 Years R/o Saraswati Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chandrakant Yadu S/o Badri Vishal Yadu Aged About 55 Years R/o Saraswati Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Satyendra Singh Thakur, Advocate S/o Dhruv Singh Thakur Aged About 54 Years R/o Vikas Vihar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Balkrishna Dani S/o Ram Gulam Dani Aged About 64 Years R/o Ameenpara
Legal Reasoning
Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.2)
Legal Reasoning
7 - Uttam Joshi S/o Late Shri Chandra Shekhar Joshi Aged About 55 Years R/o Saraswati Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.9) ... Appellants/Defendants versus 1 - Suryakant Tiwari S/o Late Shri D.R.Tiwari Aged About 54 Years Patron/Manager Shri Sai Ram Mandir Managing Committee Shri Thakur Ramchandra Swami Nagridas Mandir Parisar Saraswati Chowk, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Near Sai Mandir Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) 2 - (Died), Madan Gopal Agrawal Deleted 2.1 - (A) Brijesh Agrawal S/o Late Madan Gopal Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o Professor Colony, Sector - 2, Street No. 3, Purani Basti Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.05.12 12:47:34 +0530 2 3 - Akhilesh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal R/o Kota Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.8), 4 - Satyanarayan Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma R/o Baans Taal Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.10) 5 - Registrar Public Trust/Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.11) 6 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Defendant No.12) ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Akashdeep Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anu Mishra, Advocate For Respondents 5 & 6/State : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 08.5.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred challenging Order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-A/1) passed by District Judge, Raipur Distt. Raipur in Civil Suit No.167-A/2014, whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been partly allowed and the matter has been remitted back to the Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur to pass order afresh after complying directions issued by 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur in MJC No.15/2011 vide Order dated 30.01.2014. 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the record are that, Satyanarayana Sharma, one of the trustee of ‘Thakur Ramchandra Swami Nagridas Mandir Trust’, situated at Saraswati Chouk, Purani Basti, Raipur, made communication to the Registrar, Public Trust, informing therein that, out of ten trustees, six trustees have died, two have resigned, as such only two trustees namely Shri Satyanarayana Sharma and Shri SK Agrawal (Advocate) are 3 remained, therefore, to protect the interest of the trust, they convened a meeting on 22.7.2010 and unanimously decided to induct Madan Gopal Agrawal, Bal Krishna Dani, Prafull Chand Agrawal, Yogendra Tamrakar, Ramesh Yadu, Chandrakant Yadu, Satyendra Singh Thakur, Akhilesh Agrawal and Uttam Joshi (total 09 in number) as members of the trust. Upon such information, the Registrar, Public Trust made reference to the District Judge, Raipur under Section 25(3) of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short the ‘Act 1951’), to which, MJC No.15/11 was registered. In that case, after hearing the parties, vide Order dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure-
Decision
A/2), the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur disposed of MJC No.15/11, wherein, it has made following observations in para 17, which reproduced as under:- (17) bl U;k;ky; esa yafcr ,e0t0slh0 izdj.k dzekad 10/11 esa iath;d lkoZtfud U;kl jk;iqj }kjk izdj.k dzekad 11c&113(4)2000&01 izfrosnu fnukad 19/09/2011 ds vuqlkj iz’uk/khu Vª~zLV ds VªfLV;ksa ds chp erHksn xqVckth gksus ls U;kl dk iz’kklu mfpr <ax ls ugha gks ikuk fy[kk gqvk gS vkSj blh izdkj ls orZeku izdj.k esa miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij mDr rF; Li"V gks pqdk gSA ifj.kke Lo:i U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ gS fd Jh jke pUnz Lokeh ukxjh nkl eafnj] iqjkuh cLrh jk;iqj lkoZtfud U;kl dh fgr dh lqj{kk ds fy, iath;d bl laca/k esa fu;ekuqlkj vfoyac dk;Zokgh djsa rFkk vfoyac ehfVax cqyokdj Vª~zLV xfBr dj VªfLV;ksa dh fu;qfDr dj Vª~zLV ds izca/k laca/kh O;oLFkk djsa rFkk Vª~zLV laifRr;ksa ds voS/k :i ls vQjk&rQjh vkSj vfu;ferrk ds fy, nks"kh Vª~zLVh vFkok vU; O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa vfoyac tkap dj Vª~zLV dks gq, {kfr dh izfriwfZrZ gsrq nks"kh O;fDr;ksa ls olwyh dh dk;Zokgh djrs gq, nhokuh rFkk QkStnkjh ekeys ds laca/k es vko’;d dk;Zokgh djsaA U;klh dk vkpj.k vkSj LoHkko /kkfZeZd izo`fRr dk gksus rFkk mldk >qdko /keZ dh vksj gksus ds lkFk&lkFk tu ekul dh /kkfeZd Hkkoukvksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, U;kl dh fgr dh lqj{kkFkZ ds n`f"Vdks.k ls bl ekin.M dks ckjhdh ls /;ku esa j[krs gq, izLrkfor ukS O;fDr;ksa ds uke ij fopkj fd;s tkus gsrq iath;d Lora+= jgsxkA 4 3. After passing of order dated 30.1.2014 (Annexure-A/2), the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur, vide Order dated 16.4.2014 (Annexure-A/3) in Case no.30/B-113(4)/ 2009-10, appointed 09 persons as trustees, namely, (1) Shri Madan Gopal Agrawal, (2) Shri Balkrishnaji Dani, (3) Shri Prafull Chand Agrawal, (4) Shri Yogendra Kumar Tamrakar (Advocate), (5) Shri Ramesh Yadu, (6) Shri Chandrakant Yadu, (7) Shri Satyendra Singh Thakur (Advocate), (8) Shri Akhilesh Agrawal and (9) Shri Uttam Joshi. This order was put to challenge by Shri Suryakant Tiwari/plaintiff by filing Civil Suit No.167A/2014. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned judgment dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-A/1), learned District Judge, Raipur partly allowed the civil suit and remitted back the matter to the Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur to pass order afresh, observing therein that, without complying necessary directions issued by the learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur in MJC No.15/11, said 09 persons have been proposed to be inducted as trustees/members of the trust. Being aggrieved by this order (Annexure-A/1), instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who are proposed trustees. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that instant civil suit bearing No.167-A/2014 was filed by Suryakant Tiwari, but he has no locus to file civil suit, as he was neither a trustee/proposed trustee nor family member of the donor of the trust property. He further submits that since the plaintiff has no locus to file suit, as such it is not maintainable, therefore, remitting back the matter to the Registrar, Public Trust is abuse of process of law. Hence, the same may be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff, who is the main contesting party, while supporting the impugned judgment would submit that, as per Section 8 of the Act 1951, any person having interest in a public 5 trust or trust property, aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar, can file civil suit. He further submits that while inducting the new trustees, necessary provisions of bye-laws were not followed and even the directions issued by the 4th Additional District Judge, Raipur vide Order dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure-A/2) were not complied with, as such, impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, hence, this appeal is liable to be rejected. 6. Learned counsel appearing for other respondents also extend their support to the contention made by learned counsel for the appellants. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Section 8(1) of the Act, 1951 gives right to any person, having interest in public trust or any property of the trust, being aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar under Section 6 of the Act 1951, to file civil suit. Section 6 contemplates provisions with regard to findings recorded by the Registrar, Public Trust after making enquiry, as provided under Section 5 of the Act 1951. Property of the Public trust is not the property of any particular person, rather the same is utilised for public purpose. Therefore, if any person is aggrieved by misuse or mismanagement of the trust, then he has right to file civil suit under Section 8 of the Act 1951. Perusal of Order dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure-A/2) shows that, when two trustees, namely Shri Satyanarayana Sharma and Shri SK Agrawal (Advocate) had proposed to induct name of 09 persons as trustees of the trust, at that time only aforesaid two trustees were left as trustees (members), as six trustees had died and two had already resigned. Therefore, the Registrar, Public Trust made reference under Section 25(3) of the Act 1951, in which, order dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure- A/2) was passed by Additional District Judge, Raipur directing the Registrar, 6 Public Trust to comply with the rules of bye-laws. But without complying those directions made in para 17 of the aforesaid order, the Registrar, Public Trust vide Order dated 16.4.2014 (Annexure-A/3) again proposed same names of those 09 persons to be proposed trustees. Therefore, vide impugned judgment dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-A/1), the District Judge, Raipur remitted back the matter. Clause VII of the bye-laws specifically provides as to in what capacity a person can be made member of the trust. But from perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Registrar, Public Trust had enquired about pre- requisite conditions, as has been mentioned in Clause VII of the bye-laws. 9. On due consideration, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-A/1) passed by learned District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.167-A/2014, hence the same is affirmed. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini