1983 (9) TMI 330 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal accepted, trial judgment overturned. Case remanded for further proceedings with amended plaint. Appellant awarded costs.

Duli Chand Versus Mahabir Pershad Trilok Chand Charitable Trust

Duli Chand Versus Mahabir Pershad Trilok Chand Charitable Trust - AIR 1984 Delhi 145 Issues Involved:1. Locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit.2. Termination of tenancy and statutory tenant status.3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court.4. Proper institution of the suit by trustees.5. Amendment of the plaint.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Locus Standi of the Plaintiff to File the Suit:The defendant challenged the plaintiff's locus standi, arguing that the Trust is not a legal entity and cannot sue. The suit was filed through the Secretary of the Trust, but the trustees needed to sue collectively. The trial court distinguished a prior judgment (Birdhi Chand Jain Charitable Trust v. Kanhaiyalal Shamlal) and held that a resolution by the Trustees permitted the Secretary to file the suit. However, this understanding was contested as erroneous.2. Termination of Tenancy and Statutory Tenant Status:The plaintiff claimed that Shri Babu Ram's tenancy was terminated by a notice dated 19th May 1972, and upon his death on 30th April 1975, the defendant became a trespasser. The defendant argued that the tenancy was not terminated, making them tenants by operation of law. The court noted that if the tenancy was terminated, the defendant, being a brother of Shri Babu Ram, would not be protected under the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, if the tenancy was not terminated, the Civil Court would lack jurisdiction, and the matter would fall under the Rent Control Act.3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court:The court emphasized that if Shri Babu Ram's tenancy was not legally terminated, the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction over the matter. Instead, the case should be brought before the Rent Controllers under the Delhi Rent Control Act. This point was not decided factually as the primary issue was the proper institution of the suit.4. Proper Institution of the Suit by Trustees:The court examined whether the resolution authorizing the Secretary to file the suit was valid. It was clarified that a Trust is not a legal entity; hence, all trustees must join in executing the trust unless the instrument provides otherwise. The court cited Section 48 and Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, emphasizing that trustees cannot delegate their duties without proper authorization. The court agreed with the Full Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court (Atmaram Ranchhodbhai v. Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin) that all co-trustees must join in filing a suit. Therefore, the suit was not properly instituted as not all trustees were joined.5. Amendment of the Plaint:The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to include all trustees as parties. The court considered precedents where amendments were allowed in the interest of justice, such as L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Messrs Jardine Skinner and Co., Kurapati Venkata Mallayya v. Thondepu Ramaswami and Co., and Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply. The court concluded that the plaintiff's error was inadvertent and allowed the amendment to avoid forcing the plaintiff to withdraw and refile the suit. The amendment was accepted on payment of Rs. 200 as costs.Conclusion:The appeal was accepted, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside. The suit was remanded back to the trial court for trial with the amended plaint. The appellant was awarded costs in the appeal, and the plaintiff was granted sufficient time to pay the costs before the amended plaint was taken on record.