Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8630 (UTT)

Naveen Singh Rana v. Swargashram Trust

2026-01-02

Alok Mahra

body2026
JUDGMENT : ALOK MAHRA, J. 1. This appeal from order has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, whereby, the application seeking leave under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code for instituting suit against the defendants under Section 92(1) in Misc. Case No. 41 of 2021 Naveen Singh Rana and Another Vs. Swargashram Trust and Others has been rejected. 2. The plaintiff-appellants filed an application being Civil Misc. No. 41 of 2021 against the defendant respondent, wherein, they have sought the following prayers:- (A) To pass a decree for restoration and vesting of the assets/properties of the defendant No.1/Trust by divesting from the grip, clutches and illegal possession of the defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 their management, members and goons and agents and servants and advisors whosoever may be; (B) To pass a decree for accounting of the assets and properties of the defendant No.1/Trust and usufruct thereof since 22/4/1964 against the defendant No. 2, and 3 and 4, their management, members and goons and agents and servants and advisors whosoever may be and to further pass a decree for inquiries against them; (C) To pass a decree for settling/framing a new scheme of trust for administration of the defendant no. 1/Trust in accordance with the law and spirit of the trust as reflected and intended in the endowment deed by authors thereof by vesting the management of the assets of the defendant No. 1 in the new set of trustee(s) as well as management and accounting of the usufruct thereof by appointing a new set of trustees by removing the defendant No. 2, 3 and 4 and all other existing trustees of the defendant No. 1; 3. In the application, it is pleaded that the plaintiffs are Hindus by religion and profess both in letter and spirit all the Hindu rituals and rites by duly performing and solemnizing the ceremonies prescribed by Hindu Vedic and Puranic texts and Hindu Dharmashastras. In the application, it is further pleaded that the defendant no. 1 is a Hindu Public Charitable Trust established by Shree Mamraj, owner of firm M/s Mamraj Rambhagat in 1906. In the application, it is further pleaded that the defendant no. 1 is a Hindu Public Charitable Trust established by Shree Mamraj, owner of firm M/s Mamraj Rambhagat in 1906. Later on by a registered Endowment deed dated 03.02.1938 and registered on 02.03.1938 by Sri Mangal Chand Dalmia s/o Late Ram Kumar Dalmia R/o Chirawa, State of Jaipur in the then Rajputana (presently Rajasthan) and other Hindus named mentioned in the above said Endowment deed endowed immovable properties to the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 3 and 4 are its trustees at present. The immovable property situated in several places was vested in the trust. 4. That as per the endowment dated 03.02.1938, the object of the trust were declared as hereunder:- “(a) To establish Chattras for Sadhus, Brahmacharies, pilgrims and other religious minded persons of the Hindu community. (b) To construct temple, dharmshala, maths, huts, digging wells and to establish schools, libraries, orphanages, hospitals, charitable dispensaries and other works for the use of the members of the Hindu Communities in general and for shadhu, Brahmacharies, pilgrims and religious minded people in particular. (c) For the maintenance of the said several. (d) To carry on other acts for the comfort of the Hindu Community in general and for shadhu, Brahmacharies, pilgrims and religious minded people in particular.” 5. In the application, it was contended that the respondents have formed a registered society in the same name as that of the trust and are siphoning of the trust property in the name of the society. They have constructed several shops. Their activities are against the aim and objects for which the trust was created. 6. Objections were invited and respondents have filed their objections. In the objections, the respondents have denied the averments of the application and have further contended that the application has been filed not in public interest but to satisfy their personal interest. 7. They have further contended that plaintiff no. 1 had started a illegal liquor shop godown in the premises of defendant no. 1 without any licence from the competent authority, which was subsequently got vacated by the defendants. 8. The defendants have specifically denied that the trust property has been siphoned-off by the registered society and the trust is being managed as per the trust deed. 9. 1 had started a illegal liquor shop godown in the premises of defendant no. 1 without any licence from the competent authority, which was subsequently got vacated by the defendants. 8. The defendants have specifically denied that the trust property has been siphoned-off by the registered society and the trust is being managed as per the trust deed. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 92 of CPC of the plaintiff appellants by holding that if leave to file suit under Section 92 of CPC is granted to the plaintiff appellants, then, any person claiming himself to be a Hindu would seek leave of the Court to file suit against the trust against the respondent which would result in multiplicity of suit. The second ground for refusing to grant leave is that the plaintiff appellants have not produced any documents to substantiate their claim that the property of the trust is being mismanaged. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. It is settled proposition of law that three conditions are required to be satisfied in order to invoke Section 92 of the Code and to maintain an action under the said section, namely, that:- “(i) the Trust in question is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature; (ii) there is a breach of trust or a direction of court is necessary in the administration of such a trust; and (iii) the relief claimed is one or other of the reliefs as enumerated in the said section.” Consequently, if any of these three conditions is not satisfied, the matter would be outside the scope of said Section 92. 12. On perusal of the impugned order, it would reveal that the grounds for rejecting the application of the plaintiff-appellants by the learned court of Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal cannot be sustained inasmuch as the three conditions enumerated in the above paragraph have not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. Furthermore, this Court finds that the learned court below did not give any finding in respect of the objections raised by the defendants. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments have held that the Court has to go behind the relief claimed so as to eliminate possibility of suit being instituted for purpose other than protection of public trusts. Furthermore, this Court finds that the learned court below did not give any finding in respect of the objections raised by the defendants. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments have held that the Court has to go behind the relief claimed so as to eliminate possibility of suit being instituted for purpose other than protection of public trusts. 13. In the suit against public trust, if an analysis of the averments contained in the plaint and objections filed to it is made, it transpires that the primary object behind the suit was vindication of individual or personal rights of some persons and action under the provisions of Section 92 CPC would not lie. 14. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 is set-aside. The matter is remanded back with a direction to the learned court of Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal to decide the application under Section 92 of CPC of the plaintiff appellant by considering the averments made in the application as well as the averments made in the objections filed by the defendants in the light of the observation made in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment.