[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Suresh Chandra Verma And 2 Others vs Ghanshyam Das Koolwal And Another on 15 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:82242
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3488 of 2026
Suresh Chandra Verma And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ghanshyam Das Koolwal And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Surendra Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Vishal Agarwal
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Surendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners and Shri Vishal Agarwal, counsel for the plaintiff-respondents.
2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the defendant/ proforma respondents.
3. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.
4. The case of the petitioners is that there happens to be a public trust by the name and style of Thakur Bihari Ji Maharaj Virajman Badi Kothi Kamla Market, Hathras (hereinafter referred to as 'The Trust") which was established by Kanskar/ Thathera Community and the petitioners claim to be belonging to the said community. Owing to mismanagement in the said trust, an Original Suit bearing No. 03 of 1927 came to be instituted before the Court of Additional District Judge, Aligarh (Ghansiram v. Ram Chandra) in which on 09.06.1928, an order came to be passed by the Additional District Judge whereby the paragraph no. 3 recited that the Secretary shall manage the trust, according to the votes of the majority of the three trustees and there will be no casting vote of any trustees and in para-9, it is further recited that in case of death or disability of any of the trustee, the Court will appoint another Trustee in his place. Accordingly in the said suit by virtue of the order dated 06.10.1995 in O.S. No. 03 of 1927, Gopal Das Verma was appointed as Chief Truste, Sri Kishan Das 'Bhagat Ji' and Ghanshyam Das Koolwal were appointed as Assistant Trustees. Since they were allegations of manipulations, maneuvering and irregularities by the Chief Trustee and the Assistant Trustees so proceedings stood initiated being Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 before the court of Additional District Judge, Aligarh seeking appropriate directions. Thereafter on 22.03.2006, the Court of Additional District Judge, Hathrass in Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 (Lal Babu v. Gopal Das) proceeded to appoint on interim basis one Sagarmal was appointed as Chief Trustee and Naresh Kumar Verma and Sri Kishan Das were appointed as Assistant Trustees. Owing to allegations of manipulations, maneuvering and irregularities, proceedings stood initiated being Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 (Lal Babu v. Gopal Das) in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 pursuant whereto an order came to be passed by the Additional District Judge, Hathras on 22.03.2006 whereby on an interim basis, Sagarmal was appointed as Chief Trustee and Naresh Kumar Verma and Sri Kishan Das were appointed as Assistant Trustees. Thereafter application came to be preferred being 223Ga2, 225Ga2, 231Ga2, 293Ga2, 296Ga2, 298Ga and thereafter in the Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 (Lal Babu v. Gopal Das), the Additional District Judge, Hathrass on 24.03.2009 noticing that there were two lists and there was a serious dispute emanating therefrom so one Mukesh Kumar was appointed as a receiver who incidentally happens to be defendant/ proforma respondent no. 2. Thereafter in the Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998, applications 322Ga, 323, 324, 325, 336Ga, 348Ga, 350, 355Ga, 356Ga, 357Ga, 358, 359, 362, 363Ga, 364Ga came to be preferred and thereafter the Additional District Judge, Hathrass by virtue of the order dated 15.04.2009 proceeded to appoint Ghanshyam Das Koolwal as Chief Trustee, Vimal Kumar Chandiwaley and Gopal Das as Assistant Trustees. The said order was subject matter of challenge by Lal Babu Ram while preferring Writ-C No. 70660 of 2009 (Lal Babu Verma v. Gopal Das & Ors.) in which on 09.02.2010, the following orders were passed:
"When the matter was presented as fresh Sri Pankaj Agarwal entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and accordingly learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the writ petition within 24 hours upon the learned counsel for the respondent and the matter may be placed on 5th January 2010 as fresh.
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he served the copy of the writ petition upon Sri Pankaj Agarwal. It is further stated that whenever mention had been made to take up the case, he refused to take the notice and did not appear in the Court on account of which the matter is being adjourned.
He further states that the matter is of extreme urgency inasmuch as the sanctity of the public trust namely Thakur Behariji Maharaj Trust (in short "the Trust") is in jeopardy.
In such a situation I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is contended that the plaintiff-petitioner initiated the proceedings which was registered as Misc. Case No. 1 of 1998 on the ground that the contesting defendant respondents, who are trustees, are functioning in breach of scheme of administration and they may be directed to furnish the accounts and, further, they may be removed from the aforesaid Trust.
It has further been contended that vide order dated 23.12.2008 one Mukesh Kumar was appointed as Receiver of the Trust until holding of the fresh elections. Subsequently, on 24.03.2009 the court below directed the parties to submit a list of trustees after holding an election and the Receiver was directed to continue to manage the affairs.
It is pointed out that without deciding the validity of the election set up by the rival parties, the defendants in the suit have been handed over the charge of the trustees, which is illegal.
Prima facie, there appears to be force in the submissions, inasmuch as the defendant respondent no. 2 has been appointed as Trustee and respondent no. 1 has been appointed as Assistant Trustee with the directions that they shall maintain the accounts of the Trust.
Let notices be issued to respondent nos. 1 to 5, who may file counter affidavit.
Petitioner shall take steps for service of notice by registered post within one week.
Office shall issue notice returnable at an early date.
List for admission after service of notice on respondents.
Meanwhile, considering the facts and circumstances, the effect and operation of the order dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1998 (Lala Babu Verma v Gopal Das & others (captioned as Ghasi Ram v Ram Chandra) shall remain stayed. It is further directed that Sri Mukesh Kumar, who was appointed as Receiver vide order dated 23.12.2008 shall continue to function as Receiver over the Trust."
5. Thereafter, the said petition which was registered as Writ-C No. 70660 of 2009 (Lal Babu Verma v. Gopal Das & Ors.) stood transformed into proceedings being Matters under Article 227 No. 4798 of 2021 (Lal Babu Verma v. Gopal Das And Ors.). However, according to the petitioners, on 05.07.2023 in Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 (Lal Babu v. Gopal Das), an order came to be passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hathras whereby the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 came to be dismissed. Consequently on statement being made by the counsel for the respondents in the proceedings in Matters under Article 227 No. 4798 of 2021 (Lal Babu Verma v. Gopal Das And Ors.), the following orders have been passed:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed in Misc. Case No.1/1998.
3. It has been informed by learned counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid case being Misc. Case No.1/1998 has already been dismissed in default on 5.7.2023.
4. In view of the same, no order can be passed in this writ petition.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is consigned to record."
6. Thereafter the present petitioners along with others preferred Misc. Case No. 147 of 2025 in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 (Ghasi Ram v. Ram Chandra) decided on 09.06.1928, the following relief reads as under:
"?????????
??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ???:-
(?) ?? ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ???????? ????? ??????? ? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????
(?) ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ?????? 3/27 ??? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ?????????????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ???????? ?????? ????????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???????? ??????????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????
(?) ?? ?? ???? ????? ???????????? ?? ?????? ?????
(?) ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?????"
7. The said application is still pending consideration, however, an application came to be preferred by the defendant-respondent no. 1 preferred an application no. 4 Ga seeking a direction that the proforma respondent no. 1 who had been appointed a receiver to be directed to hand over the charge in favour of the plaintiff respondents/ Ghanshyam Das Koolwal son of late Babu Lal. The said application on opposition came to be allowed on 24.02.2026 being Misc. Case No. 162 of 2025 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.1, Hathras.
8. Questioning the same, the petitioners has been filed the present petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to argue that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that as per the order dated 09.06.1928 passed in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 (Ghasi Ram v. Ram Chandra) by the Court of Additional District Judge, there is to be each and every eventuality were three trustees, one of being Chief Trustee and according to him, no direction can be issued for handing over the charge from the receiver who had been appointed pursuant to the order of the Court to the plaintiff-respondents i.e. an individual person who is one in number. He submits that though an attempt was made by virtue of the order dated 15.12.2009 to handover charge to the plaintiff-respondent, Ghanshyam Das Koolwal, Vimal Kumar Chandiwaley and Gopal Das but the said order came to be stayed on 09.02.2010 being Writ-C No. 70660 of 2009 (Lal Babu Verma v. Gopal Das & Ors.) whereby Mukesh Kumar, the performa respondents was directed to continue as receiver and, according to him, merely because the said proceedings stood terminated that would not mean that the mandatory condition for appointment of three trustees including one Chief Trustee would be dispensed with in that regard. He submits that though the proceedings so initiated by the present petitioners being Misc. Case No. 147 of 2025 for issuance of a direction for conducting elections of the office bearer of the trust and not to handover the charge from the receiver is pending but on an application being 4Ga, now a direction has been issued which is contrary to the order passed in judgment and decree of the court below.
10. Countering the submissions so made by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners, Shri Vishal Agarwal who appears for the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 submits that the legal natural consequences will flow post passing of the order dated 05.07.2023, particularly, when the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 (Lal Babu v. Gopal Das) wherein interim directions came to be issued from time to time came to be decided, thus, it is always open for the court below to pass an order for handing over the charge to the plaintiff-respondent, particularly, when the order dated 15.12.2009 stands revived post dismissal of the writ petition whereby there was an interim order in that regard.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
12. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that with relation to the trust in question, proceedings stood initiated before the court below in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 (Ghasi Ram v. Ram Chandra) in which the court of Additional District Judge, Aligarh in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 proceeded to pass an order dated 09.06.1928 whereby there was a specific condition that the trust is to be managed by a Chief Trustee and two Assistant Trustees and, in case of death or disability of any of the trustee, the Court is to appoint another Trustee in his place. By virtue of the order dated 06.10.1995 in O.S. No. 03 of 1927, Gopal Das Verma was appointed as Chief Truste, Sri Kishan Das 'Bhagat Ji' and Ghanshyam Das Koolwal as Assistant Trustees. Owing to allegations of manipulations, maneuvering and irregularities, proceedings stood initiated being Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 (Lal Babu v. Gopal Das) in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 (Ghasi Ram v. Ram Chandra) pursuant whereto an order came to be passed by the Additional District Judge, Hathras on 22.03.2006 whereby on an interim basis, Sagarmal was appointed as Chief Trustee and Naresh Kumar Verma and Sri Kishan Das were appointed as Assistant Trustees. Thereafter an order came to be passed on 24.03.2009 owing to existence of two lists of the office bearers whereby the proforma respondent, Mukesh Kumar was appointed as the receiver. So much so in the Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 (Lal Babu v. Gopal Das), another came to be passed on 15.12.2009 appointing the the present plaintiff- petitioners, Ghanshyam Das Koolwal as Chief Trustee, Vimal Kumar Chandiwaley and Gopal Das as Assistant Trustees. This order came to be stayed in Writ-C No. 70660 of 2009 (Lal Babu Verma v. Gopal Das & Ors.) on 09.02.2010 and thereafter on 05.07.2003, the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 01 of 1998 (Lal Babu v. Gopal Das) terminated and consequently the above noted proceedings emanating from Matters under Article 227 No. 4798 of 2021 (Lal Babu Verma v. Gopal Das And Ors.) was dismissed. As apparent from the order dated 09.02.1928 passed in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 (Ghasi Ram v. Ram Chandra), the trust is to be managed through three trustees, one being Chief Trustee and two Assistant Trustees. Further in case of the death or disability of a trustee, the Court is empowered to appoint another trustee in his place. As a matter of fact once the proceedings came to be instituted being Misc. Case No. 147 of 2025 by the present petitioners before the court of Additional District Judge, Hathras for issuing appropriate directions in terms of the para-9 of the order dated 09.06.1928 in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 for appointment of the other trustees in the background of the fact that Sri Vimal Kumar Chandiwaley had resigned and Sir Gopal Das had expired, the said proceedings being 147 of 2025 is stated to be pending as the parties are in agreement on the said aspect, thus, something more was required. Since the aforesaid crucial aspects have not been considered, thus, the order does not appear to have been passed in conformity and in consonance with the law.
13. On a pointed query being raised to Sri Vishal Agarwal who appears for the plaintiff-respondent as to whether there is any discussion or the court below has adverted in the order impugned on the said aspect of the matter which is being discussed hereinabove, his answer is in negative.
14. According to him, due to the tendency of the proceedings under Article 227, the plaintiff-respondent was denuded of its right to reap the fruits.
15. Be that as it may be, since the aforesaid aspects has not been considered and according to Shri Vishal Agarwal, the matter remitted back to pass fresh order. Accordingly, the petition is being decided in the following manner:
(a). The impugned order dated 24.02.2026 passed by Additional District Judge Court No.1, Hathras, in Misc. Case No. 162 of 2025 in Computerized case No. UPHT010076862025 (Ghanshyam Das Koolwal Vs. Lala Babu Verma & others) is set aside.
(b). The matter stands remitted back to the court to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
(c). Further appropriate orders be also passed on the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 147 of 2025 in O.S. No. 03 of 1927 pending before the Additional District Judge, Hathras. Since the plaintiff-respondent is representated through Shri Vishal Agarwal and defendant-petitioners by Shri Surendra Tiwari, thus, it would be deemed that they are full knowledge of the order passed today. Accordingly, the certified copy of the order passed today along with the self-attested copy of the petition shall be filed by the respective parties before the court below by 22.04.2026.
(d). The court below shall endeavour to pass order with most expedition on the next date fixed, in case, orders cannot be passed on the next date then another date be fixed without granting unnecessary adjournments.
16. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
April 15, 2026
Ashu
