9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Removal of the appellant from trusteeship and Sarpanchship. 2. Compliance with the preliminary and final decrees. 3. Jurisdiction of the trial court to remove the appellant. 4. Mismanagement and misappropriation of trust property. 5. Application under the Religious Endowments Act and the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Removal of the appellant from trusteeship and Sarpanchship: The appeal challenges the order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Yeotmal, which removed the appellant from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship of Shri Dutt Deosthan. The appellant had been appointed as a trustee and Sarpanch by a deed of trust executed by Kasabai in 1928. Despite previous legal proceedings, including a civil suit in 1949 and subsequent appeals, the appellant continued in his role, subject to certain directions. 2. Compliance with the preliminary and final decrees: The plaintiffs filed an application on October 19, 1957, alleging non-compliance with the directions contained in the preliminary decree dated August 12, 1950, and the final decree dated November 24, 1950. The final decree had ordered the appellant to pay back Rs. 1,000-14-9 to the trust, which he failed to do for nearly seven years. The trial court found the appellant had not complied with the decrees and had mismanaged the trust property. 3. Jurisdiction of the trial court to remove the appellant: The appellant's counsel argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to remove the appellant, as previous judgments had explicitly decided against his removal. The court's jurisdiction was limited to executing the final decree, and it could not override the earlier judgments. The trial court's decision to remove the appellant was challenged on the grounds that it was beyond its jurisdiction. 4. Mismanagement and misappropriation of trust property: The trial court found that the appellant had mismanaged the trust property, failed to repair the temple, did not appoint a priest, and kept false accounts. He had leased the trust property to relatives at reduced rates and misappropriated the lease money. The court concluded that the appellant's actions were detrimental to the trust's interests. 5. Application under the Religious Endowments Act and the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act: The plaintiffs argued that the trial court had jurisdiction under the Central Provinces and Berar Courts Act, 1917, and the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. However, the court held that the application was not under these Acts but was part of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge. The court emphasized that the proper procedure under the Religious Endowments Act or the Public Trusts Act was not followed, and the trial court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to remove the appellant. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Additional District Judge, Yeotmal, due to the lack of jurisdiction to remove the appellant. The court acknowledged the appellant's mismanagement and misconduct but emphasized the need for proper legal procedures. The court suggested that the respondents could file a fresh application under the appropriate legal provisions to seek the appellant's removal. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
|
