Pran Nath Lekhi & Anr. vs Rajiv Gandhi Foundation & Ors.
1998 Latest Caselaw 654 Del

ORDER

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. The plaintiffs claiming themselves to be interested in the Trust known as Rajiv Gandhi Foundation have filed this application seeking leave of the court to institute the suit for a declaration that there was breach of the express trust created for public purpose and violation of Section 20 of the Trust Act,1882 in the working of the Trust. The plaintiffs have also sought directions of this Court to direct inquiry into the affairs and accounts of the Trust as also into the corpus of the Trust. The plaintiffs also want this Court to examine not only the working of the Trust but also to ascertain the expenditure incurred by defendant no.2 on the education of defendant no.3 and also to remove some of the Trustees who are alleged to be unfit to continue as Trustees.

2. Before the plaintiffs addressed arguments on the merits of the suit and as to whether any case had been made out for leave of the court to institute the suit, this court inquired from the plaintiffs as to whether certain paragraphs in the plaint were not liable to be struck off being unnecessary, embarrassing and/or scandalous.

3. Mr.P.N.Lekhi - plaintiff no.1 appearing in person argued at length referring to certain paragraphs of the plaint to satisfy the court that none of the averments made in the plaint were scandalous as the same, according to him, were the statements of fact. On the question, however as to whether such statements were necessary for deciding the matter in controversy in suit or tend to embarrass the fair trial of the suit, Mr.Lekhi contended that the facts were necessary to be mentioned to prove the allegations of mismanagement of the Trust by the defendants. He submitted that the hidden object of the Trust was to benefit the family; whereas the latent object was something different and to prove in this court as to what was the latent object of the Trust, Mr.Lekhi submits that the allegations were necessary to be incorporated in the plaint.

4. To find out as to whether some of the following averments made in the plaint were unnecessary, scandalous or frivolous, it would be necessary to read and quote the said averments:-

2(b) Defendant no.5 (Dr.Shanker Dayal Sharma) was not one of them. The British never regarded him as a politically undesirable person to the British Empire. He neither effectively nor actively took part in any of the many political agitations launched in India during the British Rule. He was never arrested during the freedom movement. His official bio-data on internet, which was officially transmitted by the Government of India during his tenure as Rashtrapati, described him having suffered several imprisonments during British Rule. He was projected as freedom fighter. He is not a freedom fighter. Plaintiff No.1 sent email to the agency of the Government of India responsible for transmitting false information world wide not to do so, but that agency did not take any step in that direction. Plaintiff No.1 extracted the admission of these facts from Defendant no.5 (Dr.Shanker Dayal Sharma) when the later was under cross-examination. This fact is relevant in the present suit.

9. Defendant No.2 is married in the family of the late Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru, who from 1946 to 1950 was Vice-Chairman of the Executive Council of the Viceroy and Governor General of India, and from 1950 to May 1963, Prime Minister of India. His salary during that period was about three thousand rupees monthly, board and lodging was free. The entertainment expenses were borne by the Central Exchequer. All guests staying in Prime Minister's House enjoyed free board and lodging for three days, if the stay was longer, a nominal Rs.6 and annas 4 was deducted per guest from the salary of the Prime Minister. It was the joke during those days that the Prime Minister House was the cheapest Hotel in India. Now that joke has reincarnated as Defendant No.1.

10. The late Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru was qualified as a lawyer but because he preferred to become a whole time worker of the Indian National Congress, he did not earn from the practice of law. And the late Shri Moti Lal Nehru, who was a lawyer practicing at Allahabad, did not like his son to become a whole timer of Indian National Congress. There was tussle between father and son before Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru became President of Indian National Congress in 1929.

11. The strained relations between father and son find reflection in a letter dated 5.9.1924, written by M.K.Gandhi (that was before the Father of the Nation came to be known as Mahatma), to Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru. The letter is reproduced at pages 148-149 of Volume XXV of The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (published by the Director, the Publications Division of the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting).

12. Gandhiji in that letter gave three options to Mr.Jawaharlal Nehru: (a) to get monies arranged for him to meet his needs; (b) to become correspondent in some newspaper, or, (c) to take up teaching job.

13. The footnote at page 148 of the publication referred to in paragraph 12 above reads:

"Regarding this Jawaharlal Nehru wrote "I had written to Gandhiji and said that I was rather unhappy to be a financial burden on my father and wanted to stand on my own feet. The difficulty was I was a whole-time worker of the Congress. My father, when he heard of this, was greatly annoyed."

15. On 19.3.1975, she (Mrs.Indira Gandhi) was under cross examination as RW-37, in an election petition filed against her by the late Shri Raj Narain. She was asked about her foreign accounts. Reproduced below is relevant portion of the statement on oath made by her before the High Court of Allahabad. The reproduction is taken from the paper book filed by her before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, when she filed an appeal against the adverse judgment delivered in the said election petition :

"When I was a student I did have an account in a foreign Bank. For a short while after the attainment of independence also I had an account in a foreign Bank. I was then a member of UNESCO. I have no idea as to when the account was opened. The other account had been opened when I was member of UNESCO, and at that time my father was the Prime Minister of the country. By that time the first account had been lapsed or closed. The account was opened probably in London. I was a member of the Executive Board who gets money from UNESCO. I do not recollect if my father gave me 1000 pounds and it was with that amount that the account was opened in December, 1947. I do not remember if Shri P.C.Sethi, the then Minister of State for Finance made a statement on the floor of the House on 20th April, 1970, that my father had given me 1000 pounds and that an account was opened with that money in a Bank in London on December 18, 1947. Lok Sabha Debates, dated April 20, 1970, Column 89, shown to the witness, and she stated : The statement embodied in column 89 of the said Debate is incorrect. The amount should have been given by my father as a gift. Any formality that was necessary for opening that account must have been performed before the account was opened..."

20. The hand written letter of 31.10.1966, addressed by Mrs.Indira Gandhi to "Sanjay darling", expresses her worried thoughts as she did not know where to trace her elder son although, as the text of the letter shows, she suspected him to be in Italy. That is why she asked Mr.Sanjay Gandhi, "Do you have Sonia's address?" and added "all I know is that she is in Turin". Her despair is evident from her writing in that letter :

"Everything is in one big mess and I am worried about everything".

The mother in Mrs.Indira Gandhi was upset.

21. The letter bearing the date New Delhi, November 8, 1966, partly typed and partly hand written by Mrs.Indira Gandhi, addressed to "Darling Sanjay" refers to a landlady, described as "wretched woman", who had claimed sixty pound sterling as damages from Mr.Rajiv Gandhi.

"Tikki came to see me about it. I have advised that they should try to rid the amount and pay it up. You may have to help. I am sorry your hard earned cash should be so unproductive again...."

22. When this letter was written, Mr.Sanjay Gandhi was employed as special student apprentice in Rolls Royce Motors car factory in the United Kingdom. Please see paragraph 43 below :

23. Two months later, she, gain expressed similar feelings in her letter of 12.12.1966 addressed to her son "Darling Sanjay", as the mother had no news of her elder son.

"Whatever he wants to do, he must start doing now - pilot's training or whatever. He is not getting younger."

Then she queried :

"Is he still in Italy or he has returned to England? If you have any news please let me know."

And toward the end of that letter she again reverted to "R" in this manner :

"to go back to R, I think, he is going through a difficult period and needs help. He is easily influenced and as you know, he seems to have got in." (Plaintiffs do not have the continuity as page is not clear).

The "easily influenced" expression is telling.

24. The financial position of deceased Mr.Rajiv Gandhi is evident from an undated photostat of a letter written in his own hand by him and addressed to his younger brother, "Dear Sanjay". In this letter he wrote :

"Can you do me a big favour. I have just got a letter from my bank saying that I have an over draught of Pounds 7 Shillings 18 Pence 9. Can you please pay it off. Will give you equivalent in Rupees here. I have some money of Sonia's here - it is as follows:

       31,000 Lires Pounds      17 - 16 sh.
     60 Swiss F - Pounds      5 - 0
     (torn)  Pounds      1 - 0
               ________________________
               Pounds 23 - 16 Shillings
 

      So  can you please send her that much money as soon as  possible. Her address is:
 


       Sonia MIANO    his money I will give 
     VIA BELLINI 24 you when you come here
     ORBASSAND      in the above form 
     TORINO         (erasure) i.e. in lire/
               swiss frands (or) ponds.
 

      Also  send back that bank thing as it expires on 17th  March  and you will lose Rs.20 odd if you don't."
 


 

      (Plaintiffs  have  reproduced  the letter faithfully  as  it  was written and are not responsible for errors in spelling)
 


 

25. The above referred letter has no date, but the hand writing would be easily recognised by Defendant No.2. Money changer business was being carried on by the brothers without any money changer license. No wonder what is to follow was done with a spirit of deja vu later. There was no respect of law.

26. One Mr.Walter is married to one of the sisters of Defendants No.2. It appears he got the idea that his sister-in-law being married to the son of the Prime Minister of the India his prospects of doing business in this country would be bright.

27. Mr.Sanjay Gandhi in his own hand writing recorded some of the impressions of this person who landed in Delhi from Italy.

"Walter is coming to Delhi today. In fact Rajiv will soon be here hollering to go the Airport as his place is due soon."

The second entry in Mr.Sanjay Gandhi's hand writing reads :

"Am just buzzing of to see some clown Re.Walters is the key."

It appears, then he went to the Airport and received Mr.Walter, described by him as the brother-in-law of Defendant No.2. The next hand written entry records :

"PPPS

Rajiv hollered so I rushed to the Airport. Just got back. Walter intact. he is very excited about importing things from here."

35. It is important in the context of this suit to mention, Mrs.Indira Gandhi and her partly lost the General Elections held in March, 1977, and she, resigned as Prime Minister on 22.3.1977.

Ms.Pupul Jaykar, the intimate friend of Mrs.Indira Gandhi, in her work, "Indira Gandhi", written in close cooperation of Mrs.Indira Gandhi, has this to say about her (Mrs.Indira Gandhi's) plight after she had resigned :

"As days passed, the official perquisites that surrounded the Prime Minister's residence were removed....Now with her house stripped of furniture and kitchenware, Indira was left to set up the house with what she could salvage from Anand Bhawan; the rest of the household requirements, a refrigerator, air-conditioner, heaters, pots and pans and kitchenware had to be purchased or borrowed.." (page 328).

36. The description, of the new household, No.12, Willingdon Crescent, to which Mrs.Indira Gandhi had moved after she left 1, Safdar Jang Road as given by Ms.Pupul Jayaker, is also relevant in the context of this suit :

"By the middle of May, Indira moved to 12, Willingdon Crescent. The house was small and cramped. Indira had one room of her own. It was overcrowded with trunks on which were stacked files, magazines, news papers, books were pled on the floor; her favourite easy-chair was the only piece of furniture in the room apart from the bed....I had dinner with Indira very often; I knew she did not like to eat alone. Her family members were rarely present. Rajiv and Sonia were with their friends. The dining-room was crowded, a sideboard from Anand Bhawan was cluttered with jars, bottles, plates, tumblers and fresh fruit...." (Page 335).

37. And for the fare,

"we dined on a boiled egg, a boiled potato and a mango. Occasionally I carried food from my house and we picnicked together. Sonia, when at home, cooked delicious Italian pasta meals" writes Ms.Pupul Jayakar. (Page 335).

5. From a perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs of the plaint it is evident that the plaintiffs have made averments about the personal lives of Pt.Moti Lal Nehru, Pt.Jawahar Lal Nehru, Mrs.Indira Gandhi, Mr.Rajiv Gandhi and Mr.Sanjay Gandhi. The court, if it is to entertain the present suit, is only to decide as to whether the Trust of which defendant no.2 is the Chair Person is being mismanaged in a manner so as requiring the interference of this Court. Averments made in the plaint dating back to the time of the great grand father of Mr.Rajiv Gandhi, husband of defendant no.2, in my opinion, are not relevant for deciding matters in controversy in the present suit. It is true that the court is not to dictate to the parties how they should frame their case but that rule,is of course,subject to the modifications and limitations, that the parties must not offend against the rules of pleadings which have been laid down by the law; and if a party introduces a pleading which is unnecessary, and it tends to prejudice, embarrass and delay the fair trial of the action, it then becomes a pleading which is beyond his right. This court, even if it decides to try the suit, will not investigate into the question as to whether Mr.Shanker Dayal Sharma had actively participated in any of the political agitations launched in India during British Rule or that he was never arrested in Freedom Movement. These allegations, in my view, have no relevancy whatsoever to the matter in dispute in the present suit. This court will also not investigate as to whether Pt.Jawahar Lal Nehru did not earn from the practice of law nor the court is to investigate whether Pt.Moti Lal Nehru, who was a lawyer practicing at Allahabad did not like his son to become a whole-timer of the Indian National Congress. Whether there was a tussle between the father and the son before Pt.Jawahar Lal Nehru became President of the Indian National Congress in 1929 is also not question relevant for the present suit. The allegations about Mrs.Indira Gandhi having written a letter to Mr.Sanjay Gandhi to pay the amount of rent to the landlady and the allegations about Mr.Rajiv Gandhi and Mr.Sanjay Gandhi being not in a very good financial position during their stay in London are also not at all relevant for the present suit. These allegations, in my view, are not only wholly unnecessary but appear to have been made with a view to embarrass the defendants which cannot be permitted by the court.

6. The allegations quoted above and made in paragraphs 2,9,10 to 13, 15, 20 to 27 and 35 to 37 of the plaint are, in my view, not only unnecessary and irrelevant for the purpose of the present suit but they also tend to prejudice and embarrass the fair trial of the suit. I, therefore, direct paragraphs 2,9,10 to 13, 15, 20 to 27 and 35 to 37 of the plaint set out above to be struck out from the plaint.