Delhi High Court
Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust ... vs Mohinder Kaur And Others on 1 February, 2019
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on : 7th December, 2018
Date of decision : 1st February, 2019
+ CS (OS) 3121/2011 & I.A. 8178/2017
SUJAN MOHINDER CHARITABLE TRUST AND
ANOTHER ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr.
Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Prashant Mehta,
Ms. Nattasha Garg, Mr. Alok
Tripathi, Mr. Harsh Kumar and Ms.
Aashima Singhal, Advocates.
(M:9654998650)
versus
MOHINDER KAUR AND OTHERS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal and Mr.
Sudarshan Rajan, Advocates for D-1,
2 & 4 to 8. (M:9810005698)
AND
+ CS(OS) 558/2014
MANINDER SINGH MAKER AND ORS ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mrs. Kajal Chandra, Mrs. Prerna
Chopra and Mr. Viren Kapur,
Advocates for P-1. (M:9810133536)
Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr.
Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Prashant Mehta,
Ms. Nattasha Garg, Mr. Alok
Tripathi, Mr. Harsh Kumar and Ms.
Aashima Singhal, Advocates.
versus
AJIT SINGH MAKER AND ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Sandeep Mittal and Mr.
Sudarshan Ranjan, Advocates for D-
1, 2 & 4 to 8. (M:9810005698)
Mr. Ripu Diman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate.
(M:9971529687)
CS(OS) 3121/2011 & 558/2014 Page 1 of 37
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
I.A.3268/2018 (u/O XII Rule 6 CPC), I.A.7332/2018, I.A.10999/2018,
I.A.4962/2015, I.A.6069/2018, & I.A.6862/2018 in CS(OS) 558/2014
1. The disputes in the present proceedings filed under Section 92 CPC
relate to the Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust which is a registered
charitable trust created by Trust Deed dated 6th March, 1978. It was founded
by late Shri Sardar Sujan Singh. The purpose of this Trust as per the Trust
deed are as under: -
"3. The objects of the Trust shall be :
(a) To render financial help to any educational,
medical, religious or charitable organization.
(b) To render financial help to institution for
poor and disabled persons.
(c) To provide for payment of scholarships to
students.
(d) To provide for payment of school or college
fees, Boarding and/or lodging charges and
purchase of educational books or stationery
for poor students.
(e) to provide general medical relief by
subscribing to or establishing if funds so
permit, charitable dispensaries hospitals,
clinics or to give medical relief to poor.
(f) to give monetary aid or otherwise provide
relief for floor or famine or by any other
natural calamities like earthquake and
cyclones;
(g) to provide for education and/or maintenance
of poor widows.
(h) to open orphanage homes or assist in the
conduct of any institutions for protection of
orphanage.
(i) to provide for construction of buildings for
the accommodation of and conduct schools,
colleges, research institutions, Medical clinics
and Dispensaries.
(j) to feed poor and disabled persons or for
maintenance of bagger homes or institutions
for baggers and disabled persons.
(k) For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared
that the funds of the Trust should not be
utilized for any purpose other than objects of
the Trust or for the benefit of author of the
Trust or any persons who has made a
substantial contribution to the Trust."
2. The initial trustees of the Trust were: -
(i) Sujan Singh S/o S. Bhagwan Singh,
8-Eastern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi.
(ii) Smt. Mohinder Kaur wife of S. Sujan Singh,
8-Eastern Avenue, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi.
(iii) S. Joginder Singh Maker son of S. Sujan Singh,
51/2, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(iv) Shri Prithipaul Singh son of S. Sujan Singh,
51/2, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
(v) Shri Amarjit Singh son of S. Sujan Singh,
51/2, D.B. Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi
(vi) S. Raghbir Singh, son of Shri Gopianand, Managing
Director Tara Hotel, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi.
(vii) Sh. Harbans Singh, son of S. Dayal Singh,
29-Rohtak Road, New Delhi.
3. Out of the above trustees, Shri Sujan Singh passed away on 1st July,
2009. Shri Harbans Singh and Shri Raghbir Singh also expired. Upon the
demise of Shri Sujan Singh on 1st July, 2009, resignations were submitted by
all the three sons, who were trustees in the trust.
4. The manner in which, the constitution of the trust changed, after the
demise of Shri Sujan Singh, will be set out later. The trust deed had a
specific clause to the following effect: -
"5.(a) The trustees shall hold office during their life
unless they vacate the office earlier. S. Sujan
singh shall be the Managing Trustee during
his life time and not liable to be removed from
such office except for breach of trust or
misconduct;
(b) In the event of any vacancy arising in the
office of the Managing Trustees by the death,
resignation or otherwise the next senior most
Trustees shall act as the Managing Trustee,
the seniority in respect of the Trustees herein
being reckoned in the order in which the
name of the Trustees are mentioned in the
deed.
6. In the case of any vacancy in the Trust Board
arising by death or resignation or otherwise,
the remaining Trustees will have full powers
to represent the Trust Board. The Managing
Trustees shall have, in such an event, power
to accept a Trustee to fill up the vacancy."
5. As per clause 9, the managing trustee was to manage the day-to-day
affairs of the trust. The powers of the trustees were contained in clause 10 of
the deed. The trustees could also frame rules for the management of the
trust. However, none of the rules could be repugnant to the objectives of the
trust.
6. The trust was allotted property bearing No. NH-1, New Friends
Colony, New Delhi admeasuring 1332 square meters (hereinafter, „suit
property‟). It contained a constructed building comprising of the basement,
ground floor, first floor and the second floor. The ground floor is utilized for
the purposes of running the Sujan Mohinder Hospital and the first and the
second floors were under tenancy. In April, 2007, a conveyance deed was
executed by the DDA in favour of the trust during the lifetime of Shri Sujan
Singh.
7. Upon the demise of Shri Sujan Singh, his wife Smt. Mohinder Kaur
and the three sons remained as trustees. The sons tendered their resignations
on 15/16th July, 2009 and in the meeting held on 18th July, 2009, Smt.
Mohinder Singh wife of Shri Pritpal Singh, as also Smt. Jupinder Kaur
Maker, wife of Shri Ajit Singh Maker were inducted as trustees. Thus, the
trust was reconstituted with the following trustees: -
(i) Smt. Mohinder Kaur, wife of Shri Sujan Singh
(ii) Smt. Mohinder Singh, wife of Pritpal Singh
(iii) Smt. Jupinder Kaur, wife of Shri Ajit Singh Maker
Smt. Mohinder Kaur was made the managing trustee and looked after the
day-to-day affairs of the trust. Both the daughters-in-law, who were made
trustees, lived in the United Kingdom.
8. Sometime in December, 2011, it is stated that Smt. Mohinder Singh
acquired knowledge of the suit property having been transferred. Upon
inquiries, it was revealed that a sale deed had been executed, purportedly on
behalf of the trust in favour of one of the trustees i.e. Smt. Jupinder Kaur
Maker for a sale consideration of Rs.19,20,00,000/-. Upon acquiring
knowledge of this transaction, CS(OS) 3121/2011 came to be filed. The
relief prayed for in the said suit is as under: -
"a) Pass a decree of declaration to the effect that the
sale deed dated 18th July, 2011 executed in the
name of Plaintiff No.1 in favour of Defendant
No.2 in respect of the property known as plot
No.NH-1, measuring approx. 1332.11 sq.
meters, situated in the layout plan of Community
Centre Friends Colony, known as new Friends
Colony, New Delhi, registered with the office of
Sub-Registrar V, New Delhi, at Registration
No.11278 in Book No.1, Volume No.11320 on
pages 189 to 198 on 20.07.2011 be declared
null, void and ultra vires the terms of the Trust
Deed dated 06th March 1978;
b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour
of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant No.2,
thereby restraining the Defendant No.2, her
legal heirs, representatives, agents, successors,
attorneys and/or any other person claiming
through her from selling, transferring or
otherwise creating any third party interest or
encumbrance or parting with the possession of
the property known as plot No.NH-I, measuring
approx.. 1332.11 sq. meters, situated in the
layout plan of Community Centre Friends
Colony, known as New Friends Colony, New
Delhi, to any person other than to Plaintiff No.1;
c) Direct Defendant Nos.2 and 3 to deposit the
amount of Rs.19,20,00,000/-, which was the
consideration allegedly paid by the Defendant
No.2 to Plaintiff No.1 with the Registry of this
Hon‟ble Court;
d) Award cost of the Suit to the Plaintiffs."
This suit was filed on behalf of the trust as also Smt. Mohinder Singh.
9. The Defendants took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability
of the suit in view of Section 92 CPC. On 31st January, 2012, Smt. Jupinder
Kaur Maker was restrained "from alienating, transferring or creating any
third party rights" in respect of the suit property. In view of the objections
taken by the Defendants, during the pendency of CS(OS) 3121/2011,
CS(OS) 558/2014 came to be filed under Section 92 CPC.
10. In CS(OS) 558/2014, the same allegations in respect of the suit
property being transferred illegally to Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker, were
made. The suit was preferred by Shri Maninder Singh - son of Shri Joginder
Singh, Shri Pritpal Singh - son of Shri Sujan Singh, Shri Karan Singh - son
of Shri Pritpal Singh and Smt. Mohinder Singh - wife of Shri Pritpal Singh,
along with one other person who was using the hospital, on the ground that
they are affected persons. The prayers in the said suit are as under:
"a) Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining
the Defendants from disposing / transferring /
alienating / creating any third party interests in any
manner or in any dealing with the property situated
at NH-1 Community Centre, Friends Colony, New
Delhi-110065; and
b) Pass an order of Mandatory Injunction against the
Defendants 1 and 2 for rendition of accounts in
respect of deposit of Rs.19.20 crores allegedly paid
by Defendant No.2 towards sale proceeds for the
Trust Property situated at NH-1 Community Centre,
Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065; and
c) Pass a decree of declaration that the induction of
Trustees of Defendants 1-2 and 4-6 as Trustees was
illegal, null and void; and
d) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the
removal of Defendants 1-2 and 4-6 from the Board
of Trustees of Defendant No.8; and
e) Pass a decree of declaration that all the acts / deeds
done by the Defendants including all the meetings
convened resolutions passed, decisions taken,
follow up actions taken, expenditure incurred etc.
relating to the Trust property situated at NH-1
Community Centre, Friends Colony, New Delhi-
l10065, are illegal, null and void and contrary to
the terms of Trust Deed; and
f) Pass an order declaring Plaintiff No. 2, Plaintiff
No. 5, and Plaintiff No. 1 (representing his father
Joginder Singh since incapacitated) as the only
legal Trustees of the Defendant No. 8 Trust; and
g) Pass a decree of declaration to the effect that in
terms of the Trust Deed, the Plaintiff No. 2 being
eldest son of the Settler Late Sh. S. Sujan Singh, is
to be the Managing Trustee and Plaintiff No.5 and
Plaintiff No.1 Maninder Singh (S/o third brother
Joginder Singh, since incapacitated) as the
Trustees; and.
h) Pass a declaration to the effect that the Rules
purportedly passed and adopted on22.01.2010 are
null and void and not binding on the Defendant No.
8 Trust and, further that any act or decision taken
by the Defendants in pursuance thereto particularly
in the resolution removing Plaintiff No. 5 as a
Trustee is illegal and non est; and
i) Pass a decree of declaration that the Sale Deed
dated 18.07.2011 pertaining to Trust property
situated NH-1, Community Centre, Friends Colony,
New Delhi-110065, executed by Defendant No. 1 in
favour of Defendant No. 2 (his wife) is null, void
and non est; and
j) Any other relief / order that this Hon‟ble Court may
deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of
the case."
Both the suits were heard together from time to time since 2014.
11. On 5th August, 2014, leave was granted to file the suit under Section
92 CPC. The findings of the Court at the time of granting leave are relevant
and are set out herein below: -
"5. I have gone through the copy of the Trust Deed
placed on the record. A notice of the suit for
permission to sue under Section 92 CPC was also
served upon the Defendants.
6. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned senior counsel for
Defendants No. 1, 2 & 8 has submitted that the suit is
not maintainable because of its reliefs being in the
nature of personal to the Plaintiffs.
7. A perusal of the Trust Deed shows that it never
authorised any trustee to sell the property of the trust.
Thus, leave under Section 92 CPC is granted to file the
suit."
12. On 5th August, 2014, in the application seeking interim relief, the
Court further observed as under: -
"4. Since a Sale Deed has been executed by
Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.5, which
prima facie appears to be not permissible, Defendant
No.1 to 6 are restrained from creating any third party
interest in the property.
5. The Plaintiffs have prayed for deposit of
Rs.19.20 crores in the Court. Since the execution of the
Sale Deed has been challenged by the Plaintiffs,
Defendant No.1 will decide whether to keep this
amount in fixed deposit receipt (FDR) and shall not
raise any plea that this amount has been spent on the
activities of the trust."
13. The appeal against grant of leave to institute the suit under Section 92,
came to be dismissed on 23rd December, 2015 in FAO(OS) 711/2015. In the
meantime, suit CS(OS) 3121/2011 was transferred to the District Court and
on an amendment made in the plaint therein, the pecuniary value was
enhanced to Rs.2.2 crores and the suit was re-transferred to the High Court.
On 9th September, 2016, an interim order restraining creation of third party
interest, in respect of the suit property, was made absolute in CS(OS)
558/2016. Applications were moved by the Plaintiffs seeking deposit of the
sum of Rs.19.2 crores. On 21st April, 2017, both the I.As. seeking deposit of
the amount were disposed of with the following observations: -
"IA No. 13224/2016 and IA No. 23822/2014
These are two applications filed by the plaintiff
seeking implementation of the directions given by this
Court in its order dated 05.08.2014 and subsequent
order dated 09.09.2016. Reply has been filed by the
defendant to both the aforenoted applications. In reply
to IA No. 23822/2014 it is reiterated that the amount of
Rs.19.2 crores (as reflected in the order dated
05.08.2014 as also in the order dated 09.09.2016) is
secured. This statement is also reiterated by the
learned counsel for the defendant who has instructions
from his client. It is lying in an account of defendant
no. 1/defendant no.2. Learned counsel for defendant
no. 1 is not sure whether this amount is lying in
savings bank account or current account of the
defendant. Submission is however reiterated that this
amount is lying secured and this amount will always
remain alive during the pendency of the suit and will
be not spent in the activities of the Trust. This Court is
of the view that to further advance the import of the
order dated 05.08.2014 and 09.09.2016 defendant
no.1/defendant no.2 shall place on record the details
on an affidavit of defendant no.1/defendant no.2 as to
where this amount is kept/secured.
Both applications are disposed of."
14. Thus, a clear representation was made before this Court that the
amount of Rs.19.2 crores is lying secured in the accounts of Shri Ajit Singh
Maker and Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker. On 7th September, 2017, since no
details were forthcoming as to the accounts in which the said amounts were
lying secured and no instructions were given to the counsels, the personal
presence of Shri Ajit Singh Maker was directed. On 19th September, 2017, it
was submitted on behalf of Shri Ajit Singh Maker that he does not have
assets worth Rs.19.2 crores. It was directed that he would not leave the
country till the next date. On 26th September, 2017, various undertakings
were recorded in the following terms: -
"12. Learned senior counsels appearing for Mr. Ajit
Singh Maker and Mrs. Jupinder Kaur, under
instructions from Mr. Ajit Singh Maker and Mrs.
Jupinder Kaur, respectively, who are present in Court,
undertake:
(i) that Mrs. Jupinder Kaur shall not sell, alienate,
transfer, encumber or create any third party
rights in the property known as Plot No.NH-I,
measuring 1332.11 sq. meters situated in the
layout plan of Community Centre, Friends
Colony, now known as New Friends Colony
during the pendency of the suit;
(ii) in case the plaintiffs succeeds and the Sale Deed
is declared to be null and void and the said
property shall be reverted to the Trust and Mrs.
Jupinder Kaur shall not stake a claim or seek
refund of the said amount of Rs. 19.2 crores from
the Trust or the other Trustees (other than Mr.
Ajit Singh Maker);
(iii) in case the Sale Deed is upheld and the sale is
held to be valid then Mr. Ajit Singh Maker shall
deposit the said amount of Rs.19.2 crores in the
Trust account, alongwith such interest and within
such period as the court may direct;
(iv) in case Mr. Ajit Singh Maker, fails to deposit the
said amount, within the stipulated period, Mrs.
Jupinder Kaur shall deposit the said amount of
Rs.19.2 crores (alongwith interest as directed) in
the Trust account within the such period as may
be stipulated by the Court;
(v) till such time the deposit is made in the trust
account, the said amount of Rs.19.2 Crores
(alongwith interest as directed), shall be a charge
on the subject property and would be recoverable
from the sale, alienation, transfer of the said
property."
15. The said undertakings were accepted as an interim measure and
affidavits were directed to be filed.
16. Affidavits of Shri Ajit Singh Maker and Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker
were to be filed, subject to which the order restraining Shri Ajit Singh
Maker, from travelling outside the country, would be vacated. On 20th
November, 2017, this Court passed a detailed order in respect of securing
the amount of Rs.19.2 crores. The Court found that the trust deed never
empowered anyone to sell the property of the trust. The findings of the
Court are as under: -
"9. Admittedly, the object of the trust never gave
any power to sell the property. The original trust deed
dated 06.03.1978 notes the powers of the trust and
nowhere it gives any right to dispose of the property in
any manner. What appears from the record is by a
meeting dated 26.01.2010, the defendants reframed the
rules and regulations of the trust giving more powers
to the trustees including the power to sell its property.
The new trust deed was prepared and was got
registered on 09.02.2010; clause No.9 of the amended
trust deed empowered the trust that a simple majority
would require to purchase / sell any immovable
property of the trust, though initially the trustees did
not had any such power to amend the rules giving them
power to sell immovable property of the trust. In fact,
the trust deed dated 06.03.1978 though gave power to
the trustees to frame rules but such power was only
limited to the conduct and management of the trust.
Clause No.9 of the original trust deed specifically
notes the trust shall be managed by the managing
trustees and shall have the powers of day to day
management and administration of the trust.
10. Thus enjoining themselves with the power to
dispose of the property of the trust and then to sell it by
its managing trustee in favour of his wife on
18.07.2011 for a petty sum of ₹ 19.2 crores when
undisputedly such property was earning an annual
rental of ₹ 2.00 crores and without any imminent need
of funds in the trust, prima facie appears to be
suspicions. Moreso, the amount of ₹ 19.2 Crores till
now have not seen the light of the day. The bank
statements have not been filed as yet and rather the
defendants are making contrary statements qua the
status of such amount.
11. No doubt the defendants shall be bound by
undertakings given, but considering the overall
scenario, especially in a situation where if the sale
deed is held to be valid, then who shall deposit the
amount of ₹ 19.2 Crores with the trust is not answered
as yet by defendant No.1. Rather the defendant No.1
claims to have donated the entire money.
12. Hence considering the manner in which rules
were amended to the benefit of the trustees; the way the
property was hurriedly disposed of without any cogent
reason or imminent need, and considering the
defendant no.1 is not disclosing the exact location of
such amount and rather is making contradictory
statements every now and then, it would appropriate in
the facts of the case if the amount of ₹ 19.2 Crores be
deposited by the defendant No.1 in court (as has
admitted such amount is lying in his account per
orders dated 05.08.2014 and 09.09.2016) or
alternatively the defendant No.1 shall furnish the bank
guarantee to the extent of ₹ 19.2 Crores with the
Registrar General of this Court within four weeks from
today."
17. An appeal was filed against this order being FAO(S) 320/2017 which
was withdrawn on 18th December, 2017. Modification of the order dated 20th
November, 2017 was sought before this Court. The applications seeking
modification were dismissed on 6th February, 2018. The order dated 20th
November, 2017 was not complied with. Repeated orders were passed
directing the Defendants to file their list of assets which was also not done.
On 3rd May, 2018, Shri Ajit Singh Maker was directed to be present in
Court. On 25th May, 2018, it was submitted that an affidavit in compliance
of the order dated 17th May, 2018 is ready. However, none was filed.
CCP(O) 45/2018 came to be preferred. On 20th July, 2018, the Court
informed that bailable warrants have already been issued against the
Defendant No.1, Shri Ajit Singh Maker. The Court also issued notice to the
Standing Counsel, Ministry of External Affairs. On 29th August, 2018, a
Local Commissioner was appointed to ascertain the factual situation as to
the working of the trust and the possession/position of the property. On 13 th
September, 2018, Shri Ajit Singh Maker appeared and his statement was
recorded. On 3rd October, 2018, the original title deeds of the property were
produced and the same were directed to be retained in the custody of Deputy
Registrar (Original). The bank statements of the trust were also produced for
the period from 1st July, 2009. On 1st November, 2018, Shri Ajit Singh
Maker made a submission that he does not have the funds to deposit the
money, however, he is willing to offer a property in Mangalore as a security.
On 7th December, 2018, it was brought to the notice of the Court that vide
order dated 27th November, 2018, the learned Division Bench has dismissed
the appeal challenging the order dated 20th November, 2017 and 6th
February, 2018. On 7th December, 2018, the undertaking of Shri Ajit Singh
Maker not to leave the country without the prior permission of this Court
was also accepted and arguments were heard on all the I.As.
18. The crux of the proceedings till date in both the suits for declaration
as also the suit under Section 92 are: -
(i) The order directing deposit of Rs.19.2 crores has still not
complied with;
(ii) The said order dated 20th November, 2017 continues to operate.
Shri Ajit Singh Maker and Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker continue
to be in violation of the orders of this Court. The trust is being
currently managed by Shri Ajit Singh Maker, his wife and
persons appointed on their behalf.
(iii) All the other trustees, including the sons of late Shri Sujan
Singh have been completely ousted of the trust.
(iv) Shri Ajit Singh Maker and his wife claimed to have no assets to
deposit the sum of Rs.19.2 crores. The sale transaction in
favour of Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker, however, stands admitted.
Only one son of Shri Joginder Singh remains as a trustee,
however, his role is unclear.
CHANGE IN CONSTITUTION OF THE TRUST DEED AND THE
IMPUGNED TRANSACTION:-
19. The original trustees of the trust are set out in the paragraph 2 above.
Shri Sujan Singh passed away on 1st July, 2009. During his lifetime, two of
the original trustees; Shri Harbans Singh and Shri Raghbir Singh had also
passed away. On 18th July, 2009, the wife of Shri Pritpal Singh and wife of
Shri Ajit Singh Maker were inducted as trustees. Smt. Mohinder Kaur, was
the managing trustee. On 5th August, 2009, a resolution was passed by the
trust inducting Shri Ajit Singh Maker and the following persons as trustees:
"1. Mr. Ajit Singh Maker s/o Late S. Sujan Singh
Maker
D.O.B: 27.04.1967
Passport No: 500318261
2. Mr. Satpal Singh Maker s/o S. Joginder Singh
Maker
D.O.B: 27.04.1967
Passport No: 039481844
3. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kapur s/o Late S. Puran Singh
D.O.B: 23.12.1943
D.L. No: DL-1319940039188
4. Mr. Krishan Kumar Batra s/o Late Sh. Ram Dayal
Batra
D.O.B: 15.12.1962
Passport No: E3491654"
It is to be noted that in this meeting Smt. Mohinder Singh is not present.
20. On 14th November, 2009, the rules and regulations of the trust were
amended. Even in this meeting, Smt. Mohinder Singh was not present.
21. On 22nd January, 2010, the new rules were approved in the absence of
Smt. Mohinder Singh. Finally, on 29th January, 2010, without notice to any
other trustee, including Smt. Mohinder Singh, the managing trustee Smt.
Mohinder Kaur, resigned and Shri Ajit Singh Maker took over as the
managing trustee.
22. On 3rd April, 2010, a resolution was passed removing Smt. Mohinder
Singh from the trust on the ground that she has not attended the meetings of
the trust continuously. The relevant portion of the said minutes are as under:
"3. Absence of Mrs. Mohinder Singh
The Board of Trustees have noted that Mrs.
Mohinder Singh is not attending meetings
continuously nor she had replied to the notices
sent to her. The Board has further noted that she
is not showing any interest in the running of the
Trust. The Board has decided if she does not
attend the next meeting, she should be removed
from the Board of Trust.
The above resolution was adopted and approved
by the board of trustees unanimously."
23. With the ouster of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, Shri Ajit Singh Maker and
his wife, came in control of the trust. The final trustees who remained were,
therefore
(i) Shri Ajit Singh Maker
(ii) Smt. Mohinder Kaur
(iii) Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker
(iv) Shri Kuldeep Singh Kapoor
(v) Shri Krishan Kumar Batra
(vi) Shri Satpal Singh Maker
24. On 20th October, 2010, in the presence of four trustees and in the
absence of the mother and Shri Satpal Singh Maker, a resolution was passed
to the following effect: -
"3. Selling of property at 1, Community Centre, New
Friends colony, New Delhi
As per the wishes of Mrs. Mohinder Kaur after the
demise of her husband to build a old age home
(Bridh Ashram) near Ponta Sahib in Himachal
Pradesh, India. It was therefore decided to
dispose of the above property and utilize the funds
for opening the old age people home and to give
charity as per the objects of the trust deed.
It was further decided that the purchaser should
run ground floor and basement as Sujan
Mohinder Hospital for needy people as it is doing
currently."
25. This was again reiterated in the presence of Smt. Mohinder Kaur on
22nd December, 2010. The resolution passed on 22nd December, 2010 reads
as under: -
"3. Selling of Property at 1, Community Centre, New
Friends colony, New Delhi with the consent of
Mrs. Mohinder Kaur
As per the desire and wishes of Mrs. Mohinder
Kaur, the board of trustees have unanimously
decided to sell the hospital property and build a
old age home (Bridh Ashram) near Ponta Sahib,
Himachal Pradesh, India and will utilize the funds
for opening the old age people home and to give
charity as per the objects of the trust deed.
The board was informed that so far the response
for purchase of the property on the conditions that
the buyer will run the hospital under the name of
Sujan Mohinder Hospital and the highest offer so
far received is upto Rs.19 Crores.
The Board of Trustees have decided to meet again
in the month of January, 2011 for further
consideration of this matter.
The above resolution has been adopted and approved
by the board of trustees unanimously."
26. Thus, after ousting Shri Pritpal Singh and taking control of the trust,
decisions were being taken by the trustees to dispose of the property in
Friends colony on the ground that an old age home would be built near
Ponta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh. The trustees did not end here. On 19 th
January, 2011, in an extremely curious fashion, a resolution was passed to
the following effect :-
"3. Selling of Property at 1, community centre, New
Friends colony, New Delhi
Resolved that Mrs. Jupinder Maker w/o Mr. Ajit
Singh Maker who offered a price for the trust
property situated at 1, Community Centre, New
Friends Colony, New Delhi amounting
Rs.19,20,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Crores
Twenty Lacs only) which is more than the fair
market price. She also agreed to run the hospital
as Sujan Mohinder Hospital only for ever as long
as she lives and assure to improve the facilities to
operate the hospital as being run currently.
The Board was moved with her kind gesture
keeping the founder Sujan Singh Maker‟s ideals
alive.
It is further resolved that the Board of Trustees
agreed to her offer and unanimously decided to
sell the property to Mrs. Jupinder Maker (Trustee)
at Rs.19,20,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Crores
Twenty Lacs only). The Board decided to enter
into an Agreement to Sell.
The above resolution has been adopted and
approved by the board of trustees unanimously."
27. The above Minutes record that a decision has been taken to sell the
property to Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker - who was one of the Trustees and
the daughter in law of Shri. Sujan Singh for a sum of Rs. 19.2 crores.
Pursuant to this resolution, an Agreement to Sell dated 24th January, 2011
came to be executed, selling the suit property to Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker.
On 23rd May, 2011, a resolution was passed that the property ought to get
registered in the name of Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker. On 6th July, 2011, Shri
Ajit Singh Maker delegated his powers to one of the other trustees, Shri
Krishan Kumar Batra, and finally, a sale deed was entered into, transferring
the property of the trust under signatures of Shri Krishan Kumar Batra to
one of the other trustees, i.e., Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker for a sale
consideration of Rs.19.2 crores. On 24th October, 2011, the minutes of the
trust records as under: -
"3. Sale of the Property on dated 18th July, 2011
The Board of Trustees were informed that the
property has been sold to Mrs. Jupinder Maker at
the agreed price of Rs.19,20,00,000/- (Rupees
Nineteen Crores Twenty Lacs only) and the Board
of Trustees were further informed that the full
amount of Rs.19,20,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen
Crores Twenty Lacs only) from Mrs. Jupinder
Maker towards the sale of property has been
received.
Mrs. Jupinder Maker further confirmed that she
would devote her best efforts to run the Sujan
Mohinder Hospital and will improve the facilities
available for running the hospital.
She also expressed her desire to the Board of
Trustees to help her in running the hospital in its
present form.
The above resolution has been adopted and
approved by the board of trustees unanimously."
28. Thus, Shri Ajit Singh Maker sold the property of the Trust to his wife
Smt. Jupinder Maker, in this fashion. The consideration of Rs.19.2 crores is
confirmed in the Minutes, to have been received in the trust. The above said
minutes and the sale transaction in favour of Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker are
impugned in both these proceedings.
STAND OF SHRI PRITPAL SINGH AND SMT. MOHINDER SINGH
29. It is argued on behalf of the Plaintiffs, who represent the interest of
Shri Pritpal Singh and Smt. Mohinder Singh, that the amendment to the
rules and regulations of the trust are completely illegal. The new rules
sought to change the powers of the trust. Such powers being repugnant to
the original objectives of the trust itself, the trustees have no authority to
adopt these new rules. It is submitted on their behalf that the original trust
deed is clear that the trustees did not have any power to sell any property
belonging to the trust. As per the objective No.(xv), the trust could only let
out, but not sell, immovable property belonging to it. In the new rules,
however, powers were being vested in the trust to execute a sale deed and
also sell any immovable property of the trust. It is their submission that
these new rules are ultra vires the main trust deed and are repugnant to the
objects of the trust. Since the sale transaction was entered into pursuant to
the rules which are per se illegal, the transaction ought to be declared as null
and void. It is further submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the trust
being charitable in nature, the trustees have acted against the object of the
trust and ought not to be permitted to continue as trustees.
SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI AJIT SINGH MAKER AND SMT.
JUPINDER KAUR MAKER
30. It is submitted on behalf of the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have no
locus standi to institute the suit. A memorandum of family settlement dated
2nd November, 2011 is relied upon to submit that the Plaintiffs are belonging
to the family and all the monies have already been paid to them and hence
the Plaintiffs cannot seek any reliefs qua any of the properties. It is further
submitted that the sale transaction was as per the wish of Smt. Mohinder
Kaur, who had disposed of the property during her lifetime and all the
monies received in the trust were also utilized by her in the manner as she
pleased.
31. It is further submitted that a total sum of Rs.26,00,07,000/- was
donated to various registered charitable trusts/societies during the period
from 1st July, 2009 to 31st March, 2014. This amount included the amount of
Rs.19.2 crores paid by Mrs. Jupinder Kaur Maker, as consideration for
purchase of the trust property. They relied upon a certificate of Chartered
Accountants, M/s. Bodas & Associates in support of this stand.
REPORT OF THE LOCAL COMMISSIONER
32. While arguments were being heard on the various applications, a
Local Commissioner was appointed on 29th August, 2018, to report on the
following aspects: -
"i) As to who is in possession of the property i.e. with
whom are the keys of the property?
ii) Whether any hospital is running in the property?
iii) Whether the records of the trust are in the
property?
iv) Who controls the bank accounts of the trust?
v) In which bank, are the bank accounts of the trust
operated and what are the balances in the same?
vi) Are there any other assets of the trust, if so details
thereof.
It was further directed that any records relating to
the trust including, books of accounts and
electronic account copies shall be taken into
custody and be presented to this Court on the next
date of hearing."
33. The Local Commission was executed on 4th September, 2018. The
report of the Local Commissioner reveals the status of the property as
under:-
(i) The physical possession of the property is in the control of Shri
Ajit Singh Maker and Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker. The staff
employed by them was present in the premises. The ground
floor was totally vacant. The first and the second floor was
locked. In the first floor, Yes Bank was a tenant. The terrace
was locked but the keys were not available.
(ii) Two cars of Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker were present in the
premises.
(iii) There was no hospital running. There were no patients and the
pharmacy was closed. The hospital had only two doctors; one
Eye Physician who visited three times a week and a Surgeon
who worked on commission basis. Patients were only seen
from 10.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. There was a provision of an
operation theatre, though the same was locked and no keys
were available.
(iv) Only out patient facility for a limited time in a day was being
provided.
(v) At best, it appears to be an eye clinic.
(vi) Two persons i.e. a supervisor and a hospital accountant were
present. One of them only maintained accounts of the hospital.
Income tax return of the trust was filed only till 2011. Shri
Krishan Kumar Batra, one of the trustees, appeared to be in
control. However, he was not present. Some accounts related
documents were found by the Local Commissioner which were
inventoried and put in separate cartons.
(vii) The hospital had bank accounts in Yes Bank, Bank of India and
Canara Bank. The Canara Bank account had three signatories;
Shri Ajit Singh Maker, Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker and Smt.
Seema Rani, an employee. Each of them had authority to sign
individually.
(viii) The assets of the trust could not be ascertained by the Local
Commissioner as no records were provided.
34. The report of the Local Commissioner shows that most of the building
is not in use. Along with the Local Commissioner‟s report, a statement of
payments made by Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker to the trust has been set out
which shows the following payments: -
Date Amount Remarks
24-01-2011 1,00,000.00 In Cash
22-07-2011 96,00,000.00 By Cheque
12-09-2011 6,23,00,000.00 By Cheque
12-09-2011 6,00,00,000.00 By Cheque
12-09-2011 6,00,00,000.00 By Cheque
Total 19,20,00,000.00
35. Bank statements showing the said payments have also been attached.
These documents appear to have been handed over to the Local
Commissioner by the staff, who were present at the time of the execution of
the commission. A prima facie perusal of the Bank Statements shows that
the amount of Rs. 19.2 crores was credited to the accounts of the Trust vide
four entries i.e., one entry on 22nd July, 2011 for Rs. 96 lakhs and three
entries on 12th September, 2011 for Rs. 6.23 crores, Rs.6.00 crores and
Rs.6.00 crores. However, within a couple of months, i.e., between 15th
October, 2011 to 28th November 2011, the entire amount is taken out of the
bank account of the Trust through various transactions leaving the balance
on 6th September 2018 as Rs. 19,439/-. How, and in what manner and in
whose names were the amounts withdrawn or paid, is not clear from the said
Statements.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
36. The factual scenario presented above shows an unacceptable state of
affairs in the Trust. Various applications are filed seeking a decree of the
suit, dismissal of the suit. A perusal of the trust deed of Sujan Mohinder
Charitable Trust shows that it was conceived purely for charitable purposes.
The objects of the trust did not include any benefits to the family. The trust
deed clearly contemplated that in the event of the managing trustee‟s death,
the next senior most trustee was to act as the managing trustee. The seniority
was to be reckoned in the order in which the names of the trustees appeared
in the trust deed as per clause 5(b). In case of a vacancy arising, the
managing trustee had the power to appoint a trustee to fill up the vacancy.
The day-to-day management of the trust vested in the managing trustee. The
powers of the trust did not provide for sale of immovable property. Clause
11 of the Trust Deed is categorical and reads as under: -
"11. It is declared and understood that it shall be
lawful for the Trustees to resolve and frame the
rules for the conduct and management of the
Trust and such resolutions and rules framed,
amended, altered or substituted shall have the
same force as if they have been incorporated in
the original Trust hereby created but not
repugnant to the objects of the Trust."
37. As per the above clause, the trustees could only frame rules "for the
conduct and management of the trust". However, the said rules could not be
„repugnant to the objects of the trust‟. Sale of immovable property
belonging to the trust is not contemplated in the trust deed. The original
trustees, during their lifetime clearly intended to run charitable hospitals as
one of the main objectives of the trust. In this backdrop, the question that
arises is as to what are the powers of the Court in the case of such a trust.
38. The first question to be determined is the nature of the Trust. The
distinction between a private and a public trust was considered by the
Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and Others AIR (1956) SC
133 wherein the Court observed as under
"5. It will be convenient first to consider the principles
of law applicable to a determination of the question
whether an endowment is public or private, and then to
examine, in the light of those principles, the facts found
or established. The distinction between a private and a
public trust is that whereas in the former the
beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they
are the general public or a class thereof. While in the
former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained
or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they
constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment.
The position is thus stated in Lewin on Trusts, 15 th Edn.,
pp. 15-16:
"By public must be understood such as are
constituted for the benefit either of the public at
large or of some considerable portion of it
answering a particular description. To this class
belong all trusts for charitable purposes, and
indeed public trusts and charitable trusts may be
considered in general as synonymous expressions.
In private trusts the beneficial interest is vested
absolutely in one or more individuals who are, or
within a certain time may be, definitely
ascertained...."
Vide also the observations of Mtter J. in Nabi Shirazi v.
Province of Bengal. Applying this principle, a religious
endowment must be held to be private or public,
according as the beneficiaries thereunder are specific
persons or the general public or sections thereof."
39. A similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in Sugra Bibi v. Hazi
Kummu Mia AIR (1969) SC 884 wherein the Court considered two aspects.
The nature of the trust as also the nature of the dispute brought before the
Court i.e. as to whether it is meant to vindicate a private right or the right of
the beneficiaries of the trust. The Supreme Court in this context held as
under: -
"7. Having examined the various clauses of the Wakf
deed, we are of opinion that the mere fact that there
are certain provisions in favour of the family
members of the founder along with some other
provisions in favour of the public, the case will not
be taken out of the provisions of Section 92, Civil
Procedure Code. The reason is that there is a
substantial portion of the income of the Wakf
properties to be spent for purposes of charitable
and religious nature. The proper test for holding
whether the Wakf would fall within the purview of
Section 92, Civil Procedure Code is to examine
whether the Wakf has been created substantially for
a public purpose. Applying the test to the present
case, we are of opinion that the Wakf created by
Haji Elahi Bux on November 18, 1936 falls within
the purview of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code.
This view is borne out by the decision of the
Calcutta High Court in S. Massirat Hossain v.
Hossain Ahmad Chodhury 42 C.W.N. 345. That
case related to a wakf estate, the net annual income
of which was about Rs.1.300 and out of this a sum
of Rs.353 was set apart for public purposes of a
charitable or religious nature. It was held by the
learned Judges that the amount by no means was
a trifling or a disproportionate pro-vision in favour
of the public and consequently the suit was
maintainable under s.92 of the Civil Procedure
Code, Reliance was placed by the High Court in
support of its decision upon the pronouncement of
the Judicial Committee in Vaidya Nath Aiyyar v.
Swaminatha Ayyar, 51 I.A. 282 where the founder
of the trust directed by his will that two-thirds of the
income of his property would go to his wife and the
remaining one-third would go first towards the
discharge of certain debts and thereafter to
establish a Chatram for the feeding of the poor.
There was a further provision that after the wife‟s
death, two-thirds of the income given to her would
be applied to charity and one-third, to the
members of the family. On these facts the Judicial
Committee agreed with the findings of the court
below that the Chatram so established was a public
trust.
8. It was, however, contended on behalf of the
appellant that the suit was brought not to vindicate
or to establish a right of the public institution
i.e., the trust but to remedy an infringement of an
individual right or to vindicate the private right of
the appellant. It was said that the suit was therefore
not within the purview of Section 92 of the Civil
Procedure Code. The argument was stressed that in
deciding whether Section 92, Civil Procedure Code
is attracted the Court must go beyond the reliefs,
prayed for and have regard to the capacity in
which the plaintiff is suing and for the purpose for
which the suit is brought. For the respondent it was
pointed out that the reliefs sought for by the
appellant in the present suit are exactly those
contemplated by Section 92 of the ,Civil Procedure
Code. The reliefs prayed for are : (1) removal of the
respondent from the office of Mutwalli and
appointment of Soleman, appellant‟s son, as
Mutwalli in his place, and (2) till the said
Soleman attains majority appointment of a Receiver
for the management of the Wakf estate It is true
that the facts that a suit relates to public trust of a
religious or charitable nature and the reliefs
claimed fall within Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub-
section (1) of Section 92, Civil Procedure Code
would not by themselves attract the operation of the
section, unless the suit is of a representative
character instituted in the interests of the public and
not merely for vindication of the individual or
personal rights of the plaintiff. As was stated by
Woodroffe, J. in Budreedas v. Choonilal I.L.R. 33
Cal. 789.:
"It is obvious that the Advocate-General,
Collector or other public officer can and do
sue only as representing the public, and if,
instead of these officers, two or more persons
having an interest in the trust sue with their
consent, they sue under a warrant to represent
the public as the objects of the trust. It follows
from this, that when a person or persons sue not
to establish the general rights of the public, of
which they are a member or members, but to
remedy a particular infringement of their own
individual right, the suit is not within or need not
be bought under the section."
40. Having held so, the Court held that since the right sought to be
enforced are not private rights but reliefs were sought for removal of a
trustee for appointment of a new trustee, such reliefs fall within the scope of
Section 92 CPC.
41. In KT. N. RM. Thenappa Chettiar and Ors. v. N.S. Kr. Karuppan
Chettiar and Ors. AIR (1968) SC 915, the Supreme Court held that even in
the case of a private trust, a suit can be filed for removal of a trustee or for a
settlement of a scheme for the purposes effectively carrying out the objects
of the trust. The relevant observation of the Court is as under: -
"The parties in this case have proceeded on the footing
that the trust is a private trust, but the authorities
establish that even in the case of a private trust a suit can
be filed for the removal of the trustee or for settlement of
a scheme for the purpose of effectively carrying out the
objects of the trust. If there is a breach of trust or
mismanagement on the part of the trustee, a suit can be
brought in a civil court by any person interested for the
removal of the trustee and for the proper administration
of the endowment. There are also authorities to the effect
that a Civil Court may frame a scheme in the case of a
private endowment at the instance of the parties
interested."
42. Applying the above principles, it is clear that in the present case, the
trust has been set up for charitable purposes. The objects of the trust are
purely charitable in nature. The beneficiaries of the trust are the general
public for whom educational, medical and other relief is to be provided by
the trust. It contemplates construction of buildings, assistance to the
disabled, food for the poor, etc. The objects being clearly charitable, the
Court is the guardian of the trust and its property. The manner in which the
immovable property of the trust was sold to one of the trustees and the funds
of the trust of Rs.19.2 crores, being not traceable as on date, clearly establish
that all is not well in the running of the trust.
43. There are several allegations and counter allegations by the brothers
against each other. Each of the brothers and their families were to be
involved in the running of the trust. However, as is evident from the Local
Commissioner‟s report, the disputes among the trustees have brought the
functioning of the trust to a complete standstill. Even the funds of the trust
are not safe. It is not clear as to who is utilizing the funds and as to how the
amount of Rs.19.2 crores is completely untraceable. Despite giving specific
undertakings to the Court that the amount is secured, the Defendants are
unable to explain as to why the funds are not available with the trust. A
mere statement that the funds have been disbursed for charitable purposes,
supported by a certificate of a Chartered Accountant, which to say the least
is a complete farce, does not satisfy the conscience of the Court.
44. The trust has a running hospital. It was meant to provide relief to the
poor and needy. The property of the trust had been tenanted and rent was
being earned by the trust. As of now the tenants have vacated the premises.
The building which was earning revenue is now lying vacant. There is an
urgent need for the management and administration of the trust to be
streamlined.
45. The new Rules and Regulations are prima facie contrary to the objects
of the original trust deed and are repugnant to it. The resolutions have been
passed in a completely arbitrary manner. Even the purpose for selling the
immovable property i.e. building of an old age home near Ponta Sahib,
Himachal Pradesh has been reneged upon as is clear from the amendment
application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC wherein the Defendants sought to
resile from the same. Clearly, no old age home at Ponta Sahib has been
constructed. Thus, the money of the trust appears to have been used for
purposes which was not even agreed to in the resolutions. The sum of
Rs.19.2 crores has completely disappeared. The manner in which one of the
trustees signed on behalf of the trust and executed a sale deed for the
immovable property in favour of another trustee, i.e., his wife, Smt. Jupinder
Kaur Maker, is clearly not bona fide. The manner in which other family
members have been ousted from the trust also shows that the intentions were
not clean.
46. Whatever may be the disputes between the brothers and the other
family members, the trust needs to be run in a transparent and efficient
manner. Even when the Local Commissioner visited the premises of the
trust, the records of the trust were not shown to the Local Commissioner.
There is, thus, an imminent need for the Court to step in and to protect the
trust.
47. Various objections have been raised as to the locus of the Plaintiffs.
Under Section 92, the powers of the Court are quite wide. The Defendants
have not deposited the sum of Rs.19.2 crores even as on date. The Division
Bench has already upheld the said order. The documents, in the present case,
are not in dispute. The original sale deed, the various resolutions which
have been passed by the trust, the agreement to sell, the sale deed etc. are
admitted between the parties. Since the documents are all admitted, the
Court has to merely consider the legality of the transaction. The sale having
been pursuant to the new rules and regulations which are repugnant to the
original trust deed, the same are prima facie, illegal and unlawful. The rules
and regulations of the trust as amended on 22nd January, 2010 are, thus, held
as being void and illegal. The trust shall, thus, be continued to be governed
by the original trust deed dated 6th March, 1978, except insofar as it relates
to composition of the trust, powers of the managing trustee, appointment of
managing trustee and filling up of vacancies. The said Clauses of the Trust
Deed would need to be amended, to enable the Trust to function.
Considering the fact that prima facie, the Defendants‟ family i.e. Shri Ajit
Singh Maker and Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker have wrested control of the
trust which is also confirmed by the Local Commissioner, there is a need to
bring about a balance in the administration and management of the trust.
48. The Court in such a situation is not powerless. In a suit under Section
92 CPC, the Court cannot be a mute spectator and condone the illegalities.
In order to ensure that the assets of the trust are dealt with in a manner
which is necessary to achieve the objects of the trust, the Court appoints the
following trustees as the interim trustees to take care of the administration
and management of the trust. The trust initially had seven trustees with each
of the sons having been given proper representation of the trust. Considering
the prevailing circumstances and the fact that Shri Ajit Singh Maker and
Smt. Jupinder Kaur Maker have violated the orders of this Court repeatedly,
the interim board of trustees is constituted in the following manner:-
(i) Shri Inderbir Singh Alag, Advocate - Interim Managing
Trustee (M:9810084285, Address: A 238, Defence Colony,
New Delhi)
(ii) Smt Jupinder Maker, w/o Shri Ajit Singh Maker
(iii) Smt. Mohinder Singh, w/o Shri Pritpal Singh Maker
(iv) Shri Satpal Singh Maker S/o Shri Joginder Singh Maker
(v) Shri. Janak Singh Bajwa (M:9810120394, Address: 522,
Sector - 29, Noida)
(vi) Shri Sandeep Kataria - Chartered Accountant (M:9810012037,
Address: C-497, Defence Colony, New Delhi)
(vii) Dr. Pawandeep Singh Kohli (M:9810049591, Address: 70,
Mount Kailash, East of Kailash, New Delhi - 110065)
49. The interim managing trustee would be responsible for the day-to-day
management and administration of the trust. The interim managing trustee
shall have all the powers as vested in the managing trustee as per the trust
deed. The trust shall, thus, be continued to be governed by the original trust
deed dated 6th March, 1978, except insofar as it relates to composition of the
trust, powers of the managing trustee, appointment of managing trustee and
filling up of vacancies. The quorum for any meeting would be at least five
trustees and decisions shall be taken by a majority. The bank accounts shall be
in the control of the interim managing trustee, however, all cheques and other
financial instruments would require the signatures of the interim managing
trustee along with any other official who may be appointed by the interim
trustees for the purposes of assisting the interim managing trustee, as Secretary
of the trust.
50. The interim trustees above named shall also have the power to
streamline the running of the hospital, to rent out portions of the property, to
enter into lease deeds and to take care of all the maintenance and upkeep of
the property, to deposit the taxes and other charges for the property and take
all other steps that may be required for the day-to-day functioning of the
trust. The above named trustees shall function as interim trustees for the
trust for a period of one year, during the trial of the suit.
51. The trust deed of 1978 is required to be modified owing to the various
subsequent events, including the demise of Shri Sujan Singh and his wife.
The interim Board of Trustees to suggest a draft for settling a scheme in
order to take care of the future of the Trust.
52. The existing trustees/officials who are in control of the records and all
other documents in respect of the trust shall hand over the same to the
interim managing trustee. The expenses of the trust shall be borne from the
funds of the trust. The honorarium for the interim Trustees, for attending
meetings, as also for the interim Managing Trustee, shall be fixed at the first
meeting of the Trust.
53. The interim board of Trustees shall submit quarterly reports to this
Court, of the activities undertaken by the Trust. The first such report shall
also consist of an audit report of the accounts of the trust from financial year
2008-09 onwards. The audit report shall deal with the following aspects: -
(i) The quantum of funds generated by the trust and from which sources.
(ii) List the contributors to the trust.
(iii) The expenses incurred by the trust and for what purposes.
(iv) Whether the amount of Rs. 19.2 crores was received by the Trust and if
so from whom, and further the manner in which the same was
withdrawn and in whose favour the moneys were transferred?
(v) General financial status of the Trust and its various assets.
54. The amounts, which are lying deposited with the Registrar General of
this Court, shall be released in favour of the Sujan Mohinder Charitable
Trust, after the Registrar General of this Court receives a letter from the
interim managing trustee that he has taken over the day-to-day
administration/management of the trust. Any expenses to be incurred for the
running of the trust shall be borne from the revenues generated by the trust.
55. I.A. 3268/2018 under Order XII Rule 6, seeking a decree on
admissions is disposed of in the above terms.
56. I.A.7332/2018 is for striking off the defence of the Defendant No.1.
Since the suits are proceeding to trial, the application is disposed of.
57. I.A.10999/2018 seeks to close the right of reply of the Defendants in
I.A.3268/2018. In view of the fact that the said I.A.3268/2018 is disposed
of, the present application is also disposed of.
58. I.A. 4962/2015 seeks recall of order dated 5th August, 2014 granting
leave under Section 92 CPC and registration of the suit. For the reasons
stated above, there is no merit in this application. The same is dismissed.
59. By I.A.6069/2018, the Defendants seek to bring on record a
memorandum of understanding allegedly entered into by Shri Pritpal Singh.
The Defendants also seek to prove that Shri Pritpal Singh has in fact filed a
collusive suit with Plaintiff No.4. Thus, the suit has been filed for vindication
of private rights, which is not permissible in a suit under Section 92 CPC. In
view of the above, the Defendants pray that their application being I.A. No.
4962/2015 seeking recall of order dated 5th August, 2014 be heard first. I.A.
4962/2015 stands dismissed vide today‟s order. However, the Defendants are
permitted to prove this document and their various contentions in trial. The
application is disposed of, leaving the contentions raised herein to be
adjudicated at trial.
60. In I.A.6862/2018, the Defendants seek dismissal of the suit, since the
Plaintiffs claim to be beneficiaries of the trust and also plead that the trust is a
public trust. These issues are to be decided on merits. The Court has prima
facie, also found that the present trust is of a charitable nature, without any
specific beneficiaries, subject to the final decision. The suit raises several
issues in respect of transfer of immovable property, induction of trustees
illegally, removal of trustees illegally, and various decisions taken by the trust,
all of which deserve to be looked into. The suit does not deserve dismissal at
this stage. The I.A. is accordingly dismissed.
I.A.8178/2018 in CS (OS) 3121/2011
61. This application seeks modification of order dated 21st August, 2018
by which the tenant in the suit property, Yes Bank was directed to deposit
the arrears of rent in the Court. The Defendants pray that the rental income,
along with interest, if any, be released in favour of Defendant No.2 herein i.e.,
Smt. Jupinder Kaur, on the ground that she is the lawful owner of the property.
The rental amounts are the property of the trust. They are lying deposited with
the Registrar General of this Court. The same shall be released in favour of the
trust and shall be managed by the interim managing trustee, as directed above.
The I.A. is disposed of.
CCP(O)s 2/2018 & 45/2018 and CRL.M.As. 8598/2016, 590/2018 &
9414/2018 in CS(OS) 558/2014
62. The above applications be listed before Court on 15th February, 2019,
the date already fixed.
CS (OS) 3121/2011 & CS(OS) 558/2014
63. During the pendency of the suit, the undertakings given in the order
dated 28th September, 2017 in paragraph 12 as modified vide order dated 20th
November, 2017 shall continue to operate. The undertaking given by Shri Ajit
Singh Maker, that he shall not leave the country, shall continue till the deposit
of Rs.19.2 crore is made. The banks where the trust has accounts shall ensure
that no funds are allowed to be withdrawn by any of the trustees except with a
written consent of the interim managing trustee. Copy of this order shall be
communicated to all the banks by the interim managing trustee.
64. List before Court for further proceedings on 15th February, 2019, the
date already fixed.
65. A copy of this judgment be sent to the interim Managing Trustee, Shri
Inderbir Singh Alag (M:9810084285) at A 238, Defence Colony, New Delhi,
so that the first meeting of the Trust can be convened.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Judge
FEBRUARY 01, 2019/Rekha
