[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lekhraj Thakurdas Pagarani vs Registrar Of Public Trusts Indore on 16 February, 2026
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4687
1 WP-2316-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
WRIT PETITION No. 2316 of 2026
LEKHRAJ THAKURDAS PAGARANI AND OTHERS
Versus
REGISTRAR OF PUBLIC TRUSTS INDORE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Piyush Goyal - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, Senior Advocate with
Shri Nileshwar Vishnoi, Advocate for the caveator.
Shri Rahul Sethi - Additional Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
(Reserved on :- 23.01.2026)
(Pronounced on :- 16.02.2026)
___________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally
heard.
01. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated
26.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Registrar, Public Trusts,
respondent No.1, whereby an application preferred by respondent No.2 under
Section 26 of M.P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act, 1951') has been allowed and the working trustee has been directed to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4687
2 WP-2316-2026
make an application to the Civil Court under Section 26 (2) of the Act, 1951.
02. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 has filed an
application under Section 26 of the Act, 1951 before the Registrar, Public
Trust for grant of reliefs as mentioned therein and also for taking appropriate
action to issue necessary directions and provide report to the District Court.
In application, it has been stated that Choithram Charitable Trust (CCT) is a
Trust registered under the provisions of the Act, 1951. Respondent No. 2 is
the working Trustee of the Trust. The complaint is against the Trustees of
CCT as regards misconduct, mismanagement, breach of trust and
misappropriation intellectual property misappropriation. The facts and issues
as stated in the application have narrated the mismanagement, misconduct,
breach of trust and financial misappropriation by the Trustees with a prayer
as aforesaid.
03. The application was contested by the petitioners by filing their
reply submitting that respondent No.1 does not have any jurisdiction to hear
the application since respondent No.2 has made averments as regards the
trust deed of Choithram International Foundation (CIF) which is registered at
Jersey and its interpretation can be done only by the Court at Jersey.
Respondent No.1 does not have any authority to interpret the said deed since
CIF is not amenable to the provisions of the Act, 1951. The petitioners have
demanded recovery of amount from CIF which is impermissible. The Courts
in India do not have any jurisdiction to take decision in respect of CIF.
Various other objections were also raised.
04. Upon hearing parties, by the impugned order, respondent No.1 has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4687
3 WP-2316-2026
allowed the application preferred by respondent No.2 observing that
respondent No.2 is a person interested in the functioning of the Trust hence is
entitled to maintain the application. Choithram Charitable Trust (CCT) is
nominated beneficiary of CIF and its rights and share has been disputed by
the petitioners. The petitioners have functioned as trustees of CCT and have
been the office bearers. On the basis of the documents available on record, it
is evident that there are serious allegations as regards adverse conduct in
CCT and looking to them, it would be appropriate to make an application
before the Civil Court.
05. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
06. From a perusal of the record of the case, it is seen that the
petitioners have earlier worked as trustees of CCT and are also working on
different posts of CIF. CCT is a beneficiary of CIF and as per respondent
No.2, CCT has a share in the income and properties of CIF to the extent of
25%. The averment made by respondent No.2 in his complaint in respect of
CIF is only to the extent of share which CCT has in the income and
properties of CIF and nothing more. For that purpose, it is the trust deed of
CCT which is required to be seen and the trust deed of CIF is not required to
be interpreted as has been contended by learned counsel for the
petitioners. Whether the contention of respondent No.2 is correct or not can
very well be adjudicated by having a reference to the trust deed of CCT and
that of CIF. For doing the same, no interpretation of the trust deed of CIF is
required to be made. If it is contended that CCT has a share in CIF, then it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4687
4 WP-2316-2026
cannot be said that the Courts in India would not have the jurisdiction to
enter into that aspect of the matter merely because CIF is registered outside
India.
07. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is a person interested in the Public
Trust CCT and is competent to maintain the application. CCT is a
beneficiary of CIF and respondent No.2 has raised a serious issue and dispute
as regards the income and share of CCT in CIF. Serious allegations have
been levelled against the petitioners as regards their failure to furnish the
necessary information of the income of the CCT, which has resulted into
adverse impact upon its interests. The other allegations have also not been
specifically denied by the petitioners hence would be a subject matter of
adjudication. Upon conscious consideration of the material available on
record, respondent No.1 has arrived at a conclusion that it would be
appropriate to make a reference to the Civil Court.
08. In the application preferred by respondent No.2, there are serious
allegations as regards the petitioners deliberately acting against the Trust and
misappropriating assets estimated to Rs.21,000/- Crore. They are alleged to
have declined to provide information about the incomes and assets belonging
to CCT. They are alleged to have misappropriated assets of CCT by
transferring the intellectual property into an overseas private entity. Various
other serious allegations have also been levelled. All these matters require
consideration by the Civil Court as there is a great dispute regarding the
management of income and properties of the Trust.
09. In view of the findings which have been recorded by respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:4687
5 WP-2316-2026
No.1, in my opinion, he has not committed any error in directing the working
trustee of the Trust to make an application before the Civil Court under
Section 26(2) of the Act, 1951. Moreover, at present only a direction has
been given to make the application before the Civil Court where all the
contentions as have been raised by the petitioners in this petition would be
available to be raised and the matter shall be adjudicated by the Civil Court
in extenso. The findings which have been recorded by the Registrar are only
prima facie findings and it would always be open for the petitioners to
demonstrate that they are erroneous and that the contingencies as
contemplated under Section 26 (2) of the Act, 1951 are not available for
issuing any directions.
10. Resultantly, it cannot be said that the Registrar has erred in passing
the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The same is
accordingly affirmed, as a result of which the petition is dismissed.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
