Delhi High Court
Shree Adya Katyayani ... vs Shri Shashi Bhushan Sharma on 24 January, 2014
Author: Vipin Sanghi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 24.07.2013
% Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2014
+ CS(OS) 1798/2008 and I.A. Nos. 10428-29/2008
SHREE ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTIPEETH
(MANDIR) TRUST & ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi and
Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocates
along with Mr. J.N.Pruthi, Trustee for
the plaintiff.
versus
SHRI P.P. SHRIVASTAV ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Gaurav
Mahajan, Advocate.
AND
+ CS(OS) 1799/2008 and I.A. Nos. 10431-32/2008
SHREE ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTIPEETH
(MANDIR) TRUST & ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi and
Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocates
along with Mr. J.N. Pruthi, Trustee
for the plaintiff.
versus
SHRI SHASHI BHUSHAN SHARMA ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Gaurav
Mahajan, Advocate.
CS(OS) 1798/2008 & connected matters Page 1 of 30
AND
+ CS(OS) 1800/2008 and I.A. Nos. 10434-35/2008
SHREE ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTIPEETH
& ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi and
Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocates
along with Mr. J.N. Pruthi, Trustee
for the plaintiff.
versus
DR. R.C. JAIN ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Gaurav
Mahajan, Advocate.
AND
+ CS(OS) 1801/2008 and I.A. Nos. 10437-38/2008
SHREE ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTIPEETH
(MANDIR) TRUST & ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi and
Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocates
along with Mr. J.N. Pruthi, Trustee
for the plaintiff.
versus
SHRI V.S. GAUR ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Gaurav
Mahajan, Advocate.
CS(OS) 1798/2008 & connected matters Page 2 of 30
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
JUDGMENT
I.A. Nos. 15314/2008 (under Order VII Rule 11, CPC) & 5525/2010 in
CS(OS) No. 1798/2008 (under Order XII Rule 6,CPC);
I.A. Nos. 15317/2008 (under Order VII Rule 11, CPC) & 5527/2010 in
CS(OS) No. 1799/2008 (under Order XII Rule 6,CPC);
I.A. Nos. 15313/2008 (under Order VII Rule 11, CPC) & 5526/2010 in
CS(OS) No. 1800/2008 (under Order XII Rule 6,CPC); and
I.A. Nos. 15319/2008 (under Order VII Rule 11, CPC) & 5524/2010 in
CS(OS) No. 1801/2008 (under Order XII Rule 6,CPC)
1. By this common order, I proceed to dispose of the applications filed
by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, (CPC for short) for rejection of the plaintiffs' suits for recovery of
possession, mesne profits, damages and interest on the one hand, and the
applications filed by the plaintiffs' under Order XII Rule 6 CPC praying for
the passing of decrees on admission in each of the suits. The facts,
pleadings, documents relied upon, contentions, and reliefs sought in their
suits being same/similar, I consider it appropriate to deal with them
simultaneously.
2. As the applications under Order VII Rule 1, CPC impacts the
maintainability of the suit, I proceed to deal with the same first.
3. In all the suits the plaintiff no.1 is a registered trust named Shree
Adya Katyayani Shaktipeeth (Mandir) Trust (hereinafter referred to as the
Trust), constituted for charitable and religious purposes in terms of
declaration of trust dated 16.02.1990 made by His Holiness Shree Durga
Charananuragi Baba Sant Nagpalji (hereinafter referred to as Babaji) who
attained nirvana in 1998. Plaintiff no. 2 is the Chairman and Trustee for life
and plaintiff nos 3 to 10 are the trustees of the plaintiff no. 1 trust.
4. Shri P.P Srivastava, defendant in CS (OS) 1798/2008 was a General
Body member and had been functioning as honorary advisor to Babaji on
educational and administrative matters of the Trust and Mandir. Shri Shashi
Bhushan Sharma, defendant in CS (OS) 1799/2008 is an erstwhile Trustee
and Secretary of the Trust. Dr. R.C. Jain, defendant in CS (OS) 1800/2008
was Honorary Physician to Babaji, and Shri V.S. Gaur, defendant in CS
(OS) 1801/2008 was assisting Babaji in matters pertaining to electricity and
electrical installations.
5. The plaintiffs allege that each of the defendants, in connection with
the performance of their functions pertaining to the activities of the Trust,
had been permitted to occupy the properties in their respective possession
free of charge for residential purposes located in the Matangi Bhawan
Complex of the Trust. The defendants in the four suits, aforesaid, occupy
the following properties respectively -
Suit No. Name of Area in Occupation
Defendant
CS(OS) 1798/2008 P.P Srivastav Flat nos 101 and 102 each
consisting of two bedrooms,
drawing, dining rooms, one
kitchen and two bathrooms on
first floor, 50 % of basement of
Matangi Bhawan, four staff
quarters bearing nos 5,6,102 and
103 in staff quarter wing of
Matangi Bhawan and one office
room bearing no 107, ground
floor in Laxmi Vinayak mandir
of Chattarpur Mandir Complex
CS(OS) 1799/2008 Shashi Bhushan Flat no 101 consisting of three
Sharma bedrooms, one drawing room,
one kitchen and three bathrooms
on the first floor and two rooms
and one bathroom on the ground
floor and one room in the
basement of Shiv Gauri Kalyan
Mandap, flat no 104 being one
room staff quarters on first floor
in Matangi Bhawan Staff
Quarters Wing
CS(OS) 1800/2008 Dr. R.C Jain Flat nos. 1 & 2 each consisting
of two bedrooms, drawing,
dining rooms, one kitchen and
two bathrooms on ground floor,
50% of basement all in Matangi
Bhawan and one staff quarter
bearing no. 105 on first floor of
staff quarters wing of Matangi
Bhawan
CS(OS) 1801/2008 V.S. Gaur Flat no. 102 consisting of two
bedrooms, one drawing room,
one kitchen and 2 bathrooms,
flat no. 103 consisting of three
bedrooms, one drawing room,
one kitchen, three bathrooms
both on first floor of Shiv Gauri
Kalyan Mandap and one Staff
Quarter no. 2 on ground floor of
staff quarter wing of Matangi
Bhawan
6. The claim of the plaintiffs is that the defendants are no longer
associated with the activities of the Trust. Their occupation of the respective
suit properties was merely permissive- as licensees, which stands
terminated. Therefore, the defendants have no right to hold over the
respective suit properties and each of them must deliver physical possession
of the suit properties occupied by them respectively, to the plaintiff Trust.
7. The plaintiffs aver that Babaji, the author of the trust dedicated his life
to the cause of spiritual, moral and material welfare of humanity and
received voluntary donations from the public as a result of his dedication to
service of humanity. The funds received by him were utilized for charitable
and religious purposes as well as for construction of a temple- Maa
Katyayani Temple (hereinafter referred to as the Mandir).
8. During 1975-1989, Babaji built a large complex at village Chhattarpur
consisting of Temples, Dharamshala, Satsang Bhawan, Langar Bhawan, etc.
Vide aforesaid declaration of trust dated 16.02.1990, Babaji set forth the
aims and objects of the trust, formally vesting the properties in the trust and
he was the chairman of the trust for his life time. In March 1987, Babaji
acquired 8 Bighas 15 Biswas of land which now forms part of "Matangi
Bhawan Complex" .On this land, Babaji had caused to be constructed
structures known as "Shiv Gauri Kalyan Mandap" forming part of Matangi
Bhawan Complex. The construction of this part of the Matangi Bhawan
Complex was completed during 1994-1995. During the aforesaid period,
Matangi Bhawan Staff Quarters Wing (hereinafter referred to as the Staff
Quarters) was also constructed in the Matangi Bhawan Complex.
9. The plaintiffs state that in connection with the performance of the
functions pertaining to the activities of the Mandir and Trust, the defendants
were permitted to occupy the respective suit properties in the staff quarters
at Matangi Bhawan Complex for residential purposes as licensees without
any charge. Subsequently, since the defendants ceased to be associated with
the functions of the Trust
10. The case of the plaintiffs is that in WP (C) 6769/2003, this Court had
appointed retired Mr. Justice K. Ramamoorty as an Inquiry Officer who
conducted an inquiry and advised the Trustees to take action against
unauthorized occupants pursuant to which this Court gave a direction to the
plaintiffs to take urgent steps for eviction of unauthorized occupants in
accordance with law. The plaintiffs have filed in the present suits in the
aforementioned background.
11. The case of the plaintiffs is that the license/permission that had been
granted to the defendants to occupy the aforesaid flats stood revoked once
the defendants involvement in the Trust ceased. In spite of that, the
defendants continue to occupy the aforesaid flats and are carrying on
commercial activities -which were prohibited by the Trust. The plaintiffs
sent notices dated 22.02.2007 to each of the defendants, informing them that
they were in unauthorized occupation of the flats and called upon each of
them to deliver possession within 30 days.
12. In response to the notice dated 22.02.2007, each of the defendants
stated that they possessed a right/interest to remain in possession as owner
of the flats during their lifetime. In these circumstances, the present suits
came to be filed seeking similar reliefs mentioned hereinabove.
13. The submission of each of the defendants/applicants is that no cause
of action is disclosed in the plaints in respect of the respective suit properties
inasmuch, as, they do not form part of the properties vested in the Trust. It is
submitted that the suits are premised on the averment that each of the suit
properties is part of the trust, whereas the respective suit properties have not
been dealt with in the trust deed dated 16.03.1990. The defendants claim that
each of the suit properties was actually the personal property of Babaji. It is
submitted that as absolute owner of the suit property, Babaji, out of natural
love and affection handed over exclusive possession of the suit properties to
each of the defendants, without payment of rent. The defendants rely on the
decision in Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) By LRS, 2004
(1) SCC 769, to submit that law will respect possession even if there is no
title to support it, and that no person in actual possession can be
dispossessed without having recourse to a judicial remedy.
14. The defendants/applicants submit that the plaintiff trust has no title to
the suit properties and, therefore, no cause of action has arisen in their
favour to file the suits. Learned counsel for the defendants/applicants place
reliance on Brahma Nand Puri Vs. Neki Puri, AIR 1965 SC 1506, to
submit that the plaintiffs have failed to establish any title in the suit
properties and, therefore, the suits must fail.
15. The defendants/applicants submit that the property which was vested
in the Trust comprised only of the Mandir Complex, i.e. Dharamshalas,
Satsang Bhawan, Langar Bhawan, Nature Cure Centre and parking place. It
is submitted that as per the Memorandum of Articles ("MOA" hereinafter),
the objectives of the Trust are the running of dharamshalas, nature cure
centers, maintaining various temples, etc., and do not include the suit
properties which is in the nature of residential quarters.
16. It is submitted that as per the plaintiffs' own averments, the suit
properties were constructed in the year 1994-1995, which is five years after
execution of the trust deed dated 16.03.1990 and the trust deed is silent on
the vesting of properties constructed after its execution. It is further
submitted that as per the plaintiffs' own averments, the suit property was
constructed by Babaji, and not by the Trust out of its own funds.
17. The defendants/applicants further submit, without prejudice to their
rights and contentions, that even if it were to be accepted that the suit
properties vest in the trust, clause 6 of the MOA prohibits the properties of
the trust from being sold, gifted, mortgaged, leased or licensed except in
case of legal requirements. It is submitted that, therefore, the argument of
the plaintiff that the suit properties were being used by the defendants as
licensees is fallacious.
18. It is submitted that even in respect of the plaintiffs' relief seeking
damages at market rate against the defendants/ applicant's alleged
unauthorised occupation of the suit properties, no cause of action accrues as
clause 5 of the MOA prohibits the trust from undertaking any activity for
profit. The defendants/applicants submit that, therefore, the plaint is liable to
be rejected for lack of cause of action. Reliance is placed on T.
Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr., 1977 4 SCC 467 to submit that if
on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it appears that no clear right to sue
exists, then the courts must exercise their power under Order VII Rule 11
and reject the plaint.
19. On the other hand, the plaintiffs submit that the suit properties are the
properties of the Trust by virtue of Babaji's declaration that all properties
owned by him would vest in the Trust. It is submitted that Paragraph 2 on
page 3 of the trust deed dated 16.03.1990 reads-"All the properties, as of
date, listed and valued at cost shall vest with the Trust on and from the date
of its execution". It is submitted that Babaji himself caused the construction
to be raised of the Shiv Gauri Kalyan Mandap, which is in occupation of the
defendants.
20. It is submitted that the defendants were aware of the construction
process of the Shiv Gauri Kalyan Mandap, as is evident from minutes of the
meeting dated 19.03.1995, which have been signed by the defendants,
wherein it is stated "The Shiv Gauri Kalyan Mandapam in Matagni Bhawan
complex is complete and this complex was given to the diciples of Acharya
Tulsi of Jain Terahpanth Sect". It is submitted that at the stage of an
application under Order VII Rule 11, the Court is only to examine the plaint
and not the written statement or any other pleadings. Reliance is placed on
the decision in Gunjan Khanna & Anr. Vs. Arunabh Mehta, 169 (2010)
DLT 655 in this regard.
21. It is submitted that the land on which the Shiv Gauri Kalyan Mandap
was constructed was acquired by Babaji by virtue of a sale deed in1987, and
it is on the aforesaid land that the Staff quarters were constructed. It is
submitted that, therefore, the Staff Quarters as well as Shiv Gauri Kalyan
Mandapam vest in the Trust.
22. The plaintiffs submit that, in any event, the stand taken by the
defendants that Babaji handed over the possession of the suit properties to
the defendants out of natural love and affection cannot be sustained in law,
as there can be no oral gift of an immovable property as per Section 123 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
23. It is further submitted that the defendants sent letter dated 30.01.2001
and 25.03.2001 asking the management of Shaktipeeth to settle the
electricity bill of Matangi Bhawan with DVB, as the same pertained to the
property of the Trust. Else, the defendants would have settled the same on
their own and not asked the trust to settle the same. The plaintiffs submit
that this evidences the fact that the suit properties vest with the Trust. It is
further submitted that when the plaint clearly elucidates the cause of action,
the aspect whether, or not, cause of action arises in a suit is usually framed
at the stage of issues. Reliance in support of this submission is placed on
Kishore Kumar Agrawalla & Ors. Vs. Ashish Agrawalla, AIR 2011
Jharkhand 113.
24. Having perused the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff
alongwith the plaint, I find no merit in the defendants' applications for
rejection of the plaint. The entire premise of the present applications is based
upon the defendants' averments that since the suit properties does not vest in
the Trust, the plaintiff's can have no cause of action against the defendants.
25. It is settled law that to decide an application under Order VII Rule 11,
averments in the plaint have to be read without looking at the defendants
defense, and thereupon it has to be seen whether on a meaningful reading of
the averments made in the plaint, a cause of action is disclosed, or not. On
page 6 of the plaint in CS(OS) 1798/2008, clauses (b) to (f) read as follows:
"(b) As a result of his dedication to service to humanity and
spiritual value of his teachings and for furtherance of goal
being pursued by him, Babaji received voluntary donations
from Members of Public which were utilized by him for Public
Charitable and Religious proposes as well as for the
construction of a Temple of MAA KATYAYANI.
(c) In the process during the period 1975 to 1989 Babaji had
built a large complex at village Chhattarpur consisting of
Temples, Dharmshala, Satsang Bhawan, Vanaprastha Ashram,
Langar Bhawan, Nature Cure Centre and Parking Place
facilities etc.
(d) Babaji, the Author, of the Trust vide the aforesaid
Declaration of the trust set forth the Aims and Objects of the
Trust formally declaring the vesting of the Properties to the
Trust constituted thereof and named SHREE ADYA
KATYAYANI SHAKTIPEETH (MANDIR) TRUST
(e) Babaji, the Author, being the Founder of the Trust was the
Chairman of the Governing Body (Trust) for his lifetime.
(f) In terms of the said Declaration of the Trust all the
properties vested in the Trust were required to be dealt with as
per the provisions contained therein."
26. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 7 on pages 6 and 7 of the Plaint reads as
follows -
"3. During March 1987, Sant Baba Nagpalji as
Pithadheshwar of SHREE ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTI
PEETH, Chhattarpur acquired vide duly four registered Sale
Deds(s) 8 Bighas 15 Biswas of land falling in Khasra No.4/1
(2-11), 4/2(1-3), 4/3(1-1) and 5(4-0) situated village
Chhattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli from the owners thereof, vide
Sale Deeds executed on 30.03.1987. Consequent thereupon
necessary entities were made in the Revenue Records. The
aforesaid lands from part of "Matangi Bhawan Complex".
4. On the aforesaid lands, the Author of the Trust had
caused to be constructed structures known as "MATANTI
BHAWAN" which form a part of Matangi Bhawan Complex.
5. During the said period, Matangi Bhawan Staff Quarters
Wing had also been constructed in the said Matangi Bhawan
Complex.
7. That the Defendant in connection with the performance
of his functions pertaining to the activities of the Mandir and
the Trust, has been permitted occupation of flats bearing No.
101 and 102, consisting of 2 bed rooms, Drawing, Dining
Rooms, one Kitchen and 2 Bath Rooms in each flat on 1 st floor,
50% of Basement of Matangi Bhawan, 4 Staff Quarters bearing
Nos. 5, 6, 102, and 103 in adjoining Staff Quarter Wing of
Matangi Bhawan for residential purposes free of charge and
one office room bearing No. 107, Ground Floor, in Laxmi
Vinayak Mandir of Chhattarpur Mandir Complex, New Delhi
and shown red in the Plans attached. In the office room,
Mandir Computer and other important records are still lying."
27. Further, Para 10 of the plaint in CS (OS) 1798/2008 reads as "The
defendant ceased to be Honorary Advisor of the Plaintiff No. l Trust in the
year mid 2000. The defendant, however, continued to be a member of the
general Body of the trust. Deriving of benefits from a Public Trust by a
functionary of a the Trust is otherwise illegal." In para 11, the plaintiff
avers that "The license/permission that had been granted to the defendant
for use and occupation of the aforesaid flats stood rescinded and
withdrawn/revoked and the defendant ceased to have any right to continue
to use or occupy the aforesaid flats forming part of the Trust properties of
the plaintiff no.1".
28. In the Prayer clause of the plaint, the plaintiffs pray for recovery of
possession, damages, mesne profits and interest. The averments of the
plaintiff in the other suits are more or less identical in all material respects.
29. It has not been disputed that the land on which the suit properties are
constructed was acquired by Babaji prior to the execution of the Trust Deed.
It is also an admitted position that the suit properties were constructed on the
aforesaid land. The plaintiff has filed with the plaint, a copy of the Trust
deed dated 16.03.1990 which states "All the properties, as of date, listed
and valued at cost shall vest with the Trust on and from the date of its
execution"
30. In ITC Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, 1998 (2) SCC
70, it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an
application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is to find
out whether the real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or
something illusory has been projected in the plaint with a view to get out of
the said provision. Keeping in view the averments and the prayers contained
in the plaint as set out hereinabove, it cannot be said that the plaint fails to
disclose any cause of action or that the cause of action contained in the
plaint is illusory.
31. The decision in T. Arivandandam (supra) has no application to the
facts of the present case as the present plaint sufficiently discloses a cause of
action as already discussed hereinabove. Reliance by the defendants on the
decision in Brahma Nand Puri (supra) is misplaced in as much, as, the plain
and meaningful reading of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has time and
again asserted its ownership of the suit property. The assertion of a claim
for ownership of the suit property as made by the plaintiff has to be accepted
as true and correct for the purpose of dealing with the present application, in
the circumstances discussed above.
32. In view of the above, the present applications under Order VII, Rule
11, CPC are devoid of merit and, accordingly, dismissed.
33. Next, I proceed to dispose of the applications under Order XII, Rule
6, CPC filed by the plaintiffs praying for passing of a decree on admission.
The statement of Mr. P.P Srivastav, defendant in CS (OS) 1798/2008, was
recorded by this Court under Order X, Rule 1, CPC on 15.12.2009. The
aforesaid statement has been adopted by the defendants in the other three
suits. For the sake of convenience, the aforesaid statement of Mr. P.P
Srivastav is reproduced below -
"I am residing in Matangi Bhawan, Matangi Bhawan Complex
situated near Chattarpur Mandir, Chattarpur Mandir Road,
New Delhi. I was told to live in the said property by Late Sant
Baba Nagpalji. I was living in the property with the permission
and order of Late Sant Baba Nagpalji. I am M. Sc. I retired as
Special Secretary from the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Ques. What legal right do you have over the property?
Ans. I have the same legal right which a person told by his
Guru or parents has if he is asked to live in his property.
Ques. Are you owner of the property?
Ans. I think so because it was order of my Guru to live in the
property therefore, I continue to live in the property.
Ques. Do you have any document showing that your Guru had
told that you will live in the property?
Ans. The orders of Guru were given verbally.
Ques. Do you know the modes by which a property vests in a
person, i.e., by which a person becomes owner of the property?
Ans. The property has to be registered in the name of the
person. My claim is based on verbal transfer of the property
legally owned by my guru.
Ques. Did you see any documents of the property title or
ownership?
Ans. I have not seen any document of the title of the property in
favour of my Guru even. I only heard about the title of the
property vesting in my Guru's name.
I would not believe that a property of which somebody claims to
be the owner, can be transferred on verbal orders unless and
until he is of a person of the stature of Baba Sant Nagpalji.
Ques. Are you aware of the law of this country?
Ans. I am generally aware of the law of this country.
Ques. Is there a separate law existing in this country for Sants
and Babas and a separate law for ordinary person?
Ans. Law, to my limited knowledge, is same for ordinary
persons and for Sants and Babas."
34. The first submission of learned counsel for plaintiffs is that there is a
clear admission on the part of Mr. P.P. Srivastav that there is no document
of title or interest in his favour in respect of the suit property. It is submitted
that the same stand has been taken by all the defendants in reply dated
19.03.2007 to the plaintiff's legal notice, wherein it is stated in Para 3 that
Babaji orally gifted the suit properties to the defendants. Learned counsel
submits that title to an immovable property can only be derived by means of
a registered instrument of transfer. Learned counsel submits that an
admission by the defendants that no registered instrument qua the
defendants purported title exists, is enough to defeat the claim of title of the
defendants.
35. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the defendants were
inducted into the suit property as mere licensees on account of the
defendant's being associated with the functions of the trust. It is submitted
that the defendants ceased to be associated with the functions of the trust
and, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the suit
property.
36. Learned counsel submits that Para 4 of the plaint, wherein it has been
pleaded that Babaji caused the construction of the Shiv Gauri Kalyan
Mandap - which forms part of the Matangi Bhawan Complex, has not been
denied by the defendants in their respective written statements. The
defendants have stated that the contents of Para 4 of the plaint are a matter
of record. It is submitted that para 11 of the reply on merits - in the
respective written statements of all the defendants, states that the defendants
had clarified to the plaintiffs that the suit properties were orally transferred
to them. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that this averment in the
respective written statements is in tune with the admissions made by Shri
P.P. Srivastav on 15.12.2009 and, therefore, there exists a clear and
unambiguous admission on part of the defendants that they possess no title
in the suit properties.
37. Learned counsel submits that, even otherwise, the letter dated
30.01.2001, (exhibited as Ex P11 in CS (OS) 1798/08) is an admitted
document signed by all the defendants and jointly addressed by the
defendants to the plaintiff no. 1 trust asking the management of Shaktipeeth
to settle the electricity bill of Matangi Bhawan with DVB as the defendants
had no locus standi to deal with the same. It is submitted that the aforesaid is
an admission on part of the defendants that the title of the suit property does
not vest in them, and that the suit property vests in the trust.
38. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs next submits that (Ex P-1) is the
trust deed dated 16.03.1990 which stands admitted by the defendants, who
were also signatories to the same. Learned counsel submits that the trust
deed categorically states that "all the properties as of date listed and valued
at the cost shall vest with the Trust on and from the date of its execution."
Learned counsel submits that the land on which the suit properties are
constructed was acquired by Babaji in 1987, i.e. prior to the execution of the
trust deed and therefore, as on the date of execution of the Trust Deed, the
said land vested in the trust. Learned counsel submits that the construction
of the suit properties was carried out in a phased manner till 1995. Since the
land on which the suit properties stand stood vested in the trust, therefore,
the suit properties stands vested in the trust too.
39. The next submission of learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that the
minutes of the meeting dated 19.03.1995 signed by defendant no 2 as
erstwhile Secretary state that "The Shiv Gauri Kalyan Mandapam in
Matangi Bhawan complex is complete and this complex was given to the
deciples of Acharya Tulsi of Jain Terahpanth Sect." It is submitted that
these minutes clearly demonstrate that the Matangi Bhawan complex formed
part of the Trust properties.
40. Learned counsel submits that minutes of meeting dated 25.05.1997
exhibited as EX-P17 in CS (OS)1799/2008, disclose that the defendant in
CS(OS) 1799/2008, Shri Shashi Bhushan Sharma , who was then Secretary
of the Trust, was called upon to give a detailed report about the construction
activities of the Matangi Bhawan Complex. It is submitted that the minutes
of this meeting as well as other trustee meetings are signed by Shri Shashi
Bhushan Sharma and, therefore, there is a clear admission that the suit
property vests in the Trust.
41. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the
defendants were not put in occupation of the suit properties in connection
with their functions of the Trust, but out of natural love and affection by
Babaji who wished for them to reside in the respective suit properties during
their lifetime. It is submitted that the mere fact that the plaintiff trust is
supplying water and electricity, and receiving charges for the same, does not
imply that the plaintiff trust is the owner of the suit properties.
42. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the suit
properties vest in the plaintiff no 1 Trust as the Trust Deed dated 16.03.1990
is silent as regards the status of the properties that have come into existence
after the execution of the Trust Deed. It is submitted that the construction of
the suit properties was completed in 1995 i.e. after the execution of the Trust
Deed. Learned counsel submits that it is an admitted position that the
defendant's are in possession of the suit properties and the plaintiff no 1.
Trust having failed to prove its title cannot seek to dispossess the
defendants. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on Brahma
Nand Puri (supra).
43. It is further submitted that even if the defendants do not possess a title
to the suit properties, that by itself would not make the plaintiff no. 1 Trust
the owner of the suit properties and, therefore, the possession of the
defendants is liable to be protected unless a better title is proved. Reliance is
placed on Rame Gowda (supra) to submit that in absence of proof of better
title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title.
44. It is submitted that letter dated 14.11.2003 by Shri A.L Batra,
Chairman of the Trust to the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi, states that
there is no misuse of the residential complex and that the defendants were
allotted the suit property by Babaji. Therefore, the defendants' occupation of
the suit properties is not illegal or unauthorized.
45. The statement of Sh P.P Srivatsav is reflective of the fact that no
registered instrument or lawful transfer was ever made or sought to be made
in favour of the defendants by Babaji. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth
of the defendants to claim ownership of the suit properties merely on
account of an alleged oral gift/ transfer/ license made in favour of the
defendants. The reply of the defendants dated 19.03.2007 to the plaintiffs'
legal notice Ex. D2 in CS(OS) NO. 1799/2008 (the same reply was sent on
behalf of the other defendants as well, and each of the defendants have
admitted having sent the respective replies in paras 11-12 of the written
statements) also sets out that the defendants were orally gifted the suit
property by Babaji. Under Section 123 of the Transfer of property Act, a
gift of immovable property, which is not registered, is bad in law and does
not pass any title to the donee. Therefore, it is established without doubt that
the defendants do not possess any title in the suit property.
46. The trust deed dated 16.03.1990, Ex - P1 is an admitted document.
The declaration of trust recites that Babaji was an ascetic from childhood.
He had been leading a life dedicated to the cause of spiritual, moral and
material upliftment of humanity. On inspiration in early 1970's, Babaji built
up an organization for advancement of philanthropic causes at village
Chhattarpur. Babaji was able to inspire the general public with spiritual
value of his teachings and his mission of service to humanity. The members
of the public voluntarily made generous donations for the construction of the
temple of "MAA KATYAYANI". The declaration of trust records that
Babaji unflinchingly, and without fail, applied every year almost the entire
amount received by him by way of donations & offerings to public
charitable and religious purposes. The said declaration records that with the
blessings of "MAA KATYAYANI", Babaji was able to build up over the
period 1975-89 a large complex at village Chhattarpur consisting of
Temples, Dharamsalas, Satsang Bhawan, Vanprastha Ashram, Langar
Bhawan, Nature Cure Centre and Parking Place facilities, etc. The
declaration of trust further records that application of receipts to all
charitable and religious purposes, carried on in the name of a trust styled as
SHRI ADYA KATYAYANI SHAKTI PEETH (MANDIR), were for the
entire humanity irrespective of their caste, colour, creed, or the religion they
profess. The said declaration records that it was considered proper and
expedient by Babaji to make a written declaration of trust setting forth the
aims & objects of the trust in a Memorandum of Association. Babaji wanted
to formally declare vesting of the property to the trust. Clause 2 of the
declaration of trust reads "all the properties, as on date listed and valued at
cost shall vest with the trust on and from the date of its execution".
Therefore, all the properties which were held by Babaji were dedicated to
the trust. I may note that, though, clause 2 talks about "listed and valued at
cost", there is no list of the properties accompanying the declaration of trust.
It appears that the said list might either have not been prepared or may not
have been appended to the declaration of trust. However, what is important
to note is that the declaration refers to "all the properties, as of date ... ... ...
... ... shall vest in the trust on and from the date of its execution". The
Memorandum of Association, inter alia, lays down the aims & objects of the
trust in clause 3. One of the aims & objects of the trust was declared as "(v)
Maintenance and upkeep of the existing temples and other properties of the
trust and making additions thereto for the furtherance of the objects of the
trust" (emphasis supplied). Clause 4 of Memorandum of Association states
that the funds for achieving the objects of the trust shall be raised mainly by
public donations, the offerings to the deities installed in the temples in the
trust complex which are the properties of the trust, after meeting the daily
and periodical "sevas" and worship of the deities, are required to be applied
for such purposes and objects.
47. At this stage, I may observe that the land on which the suit property is
situated was acquired by Babaji vide a sale deeds (Exhibits P-2, P-3 & P-4)
all dated 30.03.1987, i.e. much prior to the execution of the declaration of
trust. As noticed above, the declaration of trust, without any limitation,
purports to vest all the properties as on the date of the execution of the trust
deed held by Babaji in the trust from the date of its execution.
48. Pertinently, the defendants have not disputed that the land on which
the suit property stands constructed was acquired by Babaji in March, 1987.
Therefore, as on the date of the execution of the trust deed, the aforesaid
land came to be vested in the trust. In this context, it is immaterial that the
suit property was constructed in 1995, i.e. after execution of the trust deed as
the land on which it was constructed already stood vested in the trust as on
16.03.1990. As noticed above, one of the objects of the trust was the
maintenance and upkeep of the existing temples and other properties of the
trust "and making additions thereto for the furtherance of the objects of the
trust". The trust deed, as noticed above, also states as to where the funds
have to be sourced from. The said funds were to come mainly by public
donations and offerings to the deities in the temples of the trust complex,
after meeting on a modest scale the daily and periodical sevas the worship of
the deities. Thus, the Trust Deed is comprehensive and robust enough to
take within the fold of the trust, all such properties as may be acquired or
developed by the accretion of the trust, such as donations, offerings and
chadhavas in the temples set up and run by the trust. There is nothing at all
to suggest that the funds for raising the construction of the suit properties on
the land of the trust was sourced from any other source other than from
Babaji or the funds and income of the trust. That is not even the defence of
the defendants. Merely because the constructions on the land in question
came up after the execution of the deed of declaration of Trust, does not
mean that the structures do not vest in the Trust. Pertinently, the defendants
do not even seek to draw a distinction with regard to ownership of the
structure and ownership of the land underneath the structures. The
defendants merely contend that the suit properties - as a whole, do not vest
in the Trust. This submission of the defendants is untenable in law on a
mere look at the admitted documents - viz. the Trust Deed Ex.P1.
49. In Dhoodhnath Pandey Vs. Suresh Chand Bhattasali, AIR 1986 SC
1509, the Supreme Court held that an admission must be taken as a whole
and it is not permissible to rely on part of the admission ignoring the rest. As
aforesaid, the admission of Sh P.P Srivatav - which has been adopted by the
defendants in the other three suits as well, is in tune with the documents
filed on record as well as the respective written statements of the defendants
- wherein they do not deny the averments made in Para 1-6 of the plaint. In
paras 1 to 6 of the plaints, the plaintiffs have averred with regard to wherein
the factum of execution of trust deed dated 16.03.1990, vesting of the
properties as on 16.03.1990 in the trust, and the acquisition of land by
Babaji in 1987 on which the suit property was constructed are set out.
50. The submission of the defendants that the Chairman of the trust, Shri
A.L. Batra in letter dated 14.11.2003 to the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi,
stated that there is no misuse of the residential complex and that the
defendants were allotted the suit property by Babaji is evidence of the fact
that the defendants are not in unauthorized possession of the suit property is
meritless. The use and occupation of the defendants may have been
considered authorized by the Chairman of the trust Shri A.L. Batra when he
issued the letter dated 14.11.2003 to the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi.
However, the same cannot be considered to be authorized after the plaintiff
called upon the defendants to vacate the suit premises and deliver physical
possession thereof to them. Even if it were to be accepted that Babaji had
allotted the suit property to the defendants, it is obvious that Babaji while
doing so, was dealing with the property of the trust and acted in his capacity
as the Chairman of the trust.
51. I may note that Babaji, being the founder of the trust was declared to
be the ex-officio member of the Governing Body constituted with the
trustees. He was a trustee for life and he presided over the Governing Body
of the trust. Being the Chairman, he also had a casting vote. In fact, the
present suit came to be filed on account of the directions issued by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C.) No.6769/2003 decided on
04.07.2008 titled as N.K. Bindra & Another Vs. Union of India & Others.
In those proceedings, the Court had appointed, inter alia, Mr. H.L. Tiku as
Amicus Curiae, who had made his suggestion with regard to the
maintenance of the trust, and one of the suggestions was the eviction of
unauthorized occupants from the trust premises. The Division Bench while
disposing of the writ petition in one of the operative directions directed that
"in the circumstances, we direct that urgent steps must be taken for eviction
of unauthorized occupants from the trust premises". Therefore, the
submission of the defendants that there was no misuse of the trust property
is meritless.
52. Even otherwise, the documents on record show that the stand of the
defendants has been consistent with the admission that the defendants have
no lawful title to the suit property. Letter dated 30.01.2001 (signed by all
the defendants and jointly addressed by the defendants to the plaintiff no.
1Trust) - the original of which is Ex P11 in CS (OS) 1798/08, is admitted by
Mr. P.P. Srivastav, though denied by the defendants in the other suits on
account of being a carbon copy, asking the management of the Shaktipeeth
to settle the electricity bill of Matangi Bhawan with DVB, as the defendants
had no locus standi to deal with the same. This letter evidences the fact that
the defendants have always maintained the stand that they are not absolute
owners of the suit property, and, at least, that the plaintiff Trust has a better
title.
53. The submission of the defendants that the suit property could not have
been licensed under the Memorandum of Association of the trust and that,
therefore, the defendants were not the licensees, also has no merit. Clauses
5 & 6 of the Memorandum of Association read as follows:
"5. The Trust shall not carry on any activity for profit or with
any profit motive. The trust will not conduct any
commercial activities in its premises/property nor shall
allow anybody to do so.
6. The properties of the trust should not be
sold/gifted/mortgaged/leased/licenced/settlement or
otherwise in the normal circumstances. However, in the
case of legal requirements and or exegencies such sale
etc. can be made only by unanimous decision of the
board & the proceeds would be used only for charitable
purposes."
54. There is no written document of license set up by the defendants. The
suit properties were not formally licensed to the defendants by the plaintiff
trust, or by its Chairman, i.e. Babaji. It was merely a permission granted by
the Chairman of the trust to the defendants, who were then occupying
positions in the trust, to reside in the suit properties. It is obvious that such
permission was granted keeping in view the aspects of convenience and
efficiency, as the defendants were then required to manage the affairs of the
trust which were running the temples and other facilities of the complex. It
is well-known that such temples are open practically round the clock. They
open very early in the morning before day break and continue to function
even till very late in the night. Clause 6, as aforesaid, does not advance the
case of the defendants at all. Even if one were to proceed on the basis that
no licenses could be created in favour of the defendants, it would not vest
any superior rights in the defendants qua the suit property. Therefore, the
defense of the defendants that the plaintiff no. 1Trust has failed to establish
its own title to the suit properties is meritless.
55. Thus it is clear on the basis of the admitted documents placed on
record, namely, the trust deed (Exhibit P-1) and the title deeds (Exhibits P-2,
P-3 & P-4), as also the uncontroverted averments made in the suit, that the
ownership of the suit property vests in the plaintiff trust in its entirety.
56. Though, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has also sought to place
reliance on the minutes of the meeting dated 19.03.1995 (Exhibit PW-1/14
in C.S.(O.S.) No. 1799/2008) and minutes of the meeting dated 25.05.1997
(Exhibit P-17 in C.S.(O.S.) No. 1799/2008) - both of which have been,
admittedly, signed by the defendant Sh. Shashi Bhushan Sharma, the then
Secretary of the plaintiff trust - to submit that the said minutes reflect that
the trust took note of the construction of, inter alia, the suit properties and
that, therefore, it is obvious that the suit properties belong to the trust, I am
not inclined to proceed on the basis of the said documents since the contents
of these documents have been denied by the defendants. In my view, it is
not necessary for the plaintiffs to even rely on the said documents to
establish their title to the suit properties, as it is clear from the aforesaid
discussion that the plaintiffs have full & complete title to the same.
57. In Sunrise Construction Vs. Veena Wahi, 2009 ILR (6) Delhi 38, this
Court observed that while passing a decree under Order XII Rule 6, the
fundamental concern of the Court is that the defendant is given ample
opportunity to prove his pleaded defense. The Court observed that, however,
in a case where defense itself is unstateable and/or is barred under some law,
it is a case of "no defense" and it is not necessary to drag the suit. The court
can proceed to decide the matter on its merits. As aforementioned, the
primary defense pleaded by the defendant that the suit property was orally
transferred, is untenable in law.
58. Reliance placed by the defendants on Brahma Nand Puri (supra) and
Rame Gowda (supra) is misplaced, as the plaintiff no. 1/ trust has succeeded
in establishing a title to the suit property. It is pertinent to note that neither
of the defendants in their respective suits have claimed that they are still
actively associated with the functioning of the Trust. This aspect is relevant
to ascertain the capacity in which the defendants are occupying their
respective portions of the suit properties. Having failed to even claim as
aforesaid, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the continued
occupation of the defendants in the suit properties is unauthorized.
59. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff no.1 having
successfully established its title to the suit properties, coupled with the
admission of the defendants that the suit properties were not "transferred" to
them through written instruments, it is established that the plaintiff no. 1
trust is entitled to recover possession from the defendants. Accordingly, this
application is allowed and a partial decree for recovery of possession is
passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in the aforesaid
suits, in respect of the respective suit properties of the plaintiff Trust under
their use and occupation, the details whereof are tabulated hereinbelow:
Suit No. Name of Area in Occupation
Defendant
CS(OS) 1798/2008 P.P Srivastav Flat nos 101 and 102 each
consisting of two bedrooms,
drawing, dining rooms, one
kitchen and two bathrooms on
first floor, 50 % of basement of
Matangi Bhawan, four staff
quarters bearing nos 5,6,102 and
103 in staff quarter wing of
Matangi Bhawan and one office
room bearing no 107, ground
floor in Laxmi Vinayak mandir
of Chattarpur Mandir Complex
CS(OS) 1799/2008 Shashi Bhushan Flat no 101 consisting of three
Sharma bedrooms, one drawing room,
one kitchen and three bathrooms
on the first floor and two rooms
and one bathroom on the ground
floor and one room in the
basement of Shiv Gauri Kalyan
Mandap, flat no 104 being one
room staff quarters on first floor
in Matangi Bhawan Staff
Quarters Wing
CS(OS) 1800/2008 Dr. R.C Jain Flat nos. 1 & 2 each consisting
of two bedrooms, drawing,
dining rooms, one kitchen and
two bathrooms on ground floor,
50% of basement all in Matangi
Bhawan and one staff quarter
bearing no. 105 on first floor of
staff quarters wing of Matangi
Bhawan
CS(OS) 1801/2008 V.S. Gaur Flat no. 102 consisting of two
bedrooms, one drawing room,
one kitchen and 2 bathrooms,
flat no. 103 consisting of three
bedrooms, one drawing room,
one kitchen, three bathrooms
both on first floor of Shiv Gauri
Kalyan Mandap and one Staff
Quarter no. 2 on ground floor of
staff quarter wing of Matangi
Bhawan
60. The aspect of damages shall be construed after an inquiry under Order
XX Rule 12 CPC.
(VIPIN SANGHI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 24, 2014
B.S. Rohella
