Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench’s directions allowing the Letters Patent Appeal and directing the parties to resolve the dispute in the pending civil suits cannot be faulted.

Summary

Muni Kumar Razaon appealed against a Division Bench order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had allowed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the respondents. The underlying dispute concerned the registration of the Trimurti Charitable Trust under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951, and a writ petition that was decided by a Single Judge without giving notice to the respondents. The Division Bench held that the Single Judge erred in not issuing notice but chose not to remand the matter, directing that the issues be resolved in pending civil suits filed under Section 8 of the Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the Division Bench’s direction was proper and whether the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable. It concluded that the Division Bench’s observations could not be faulted and dismissed the appeal, leaving the civil suits to decide the questions of trust registration and title.

Issues considered

Whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable when the order appealed is not a judgment within the meaning of clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
Whether the Division Bench should have remanded the matter to the Single Judge after finding a breach of natural justice by not issuing notice.
Whether the dispute over the registration of the trust can be adjudicated in pending civil suits under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951.
Whether the Registrar of Public Trusts has jurisdiction to review a registration order after the trust has been registered.

Subjects

trust registrationpublic trust actwrit petitionnatural justicenoticeletters patent appealcivil suit under Section 8jurisdiction of registrar

Judgment

"' [2009] 8 S.C.R. 1069

MUNI KUMAR RAZOAN A
v.
TRIMURTI CHARITABLE TRUST, GWALIOR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3474 of 2009)
MAY 8, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
~ GANGULY, JJ.)

Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 - ss.5 and 8 -
Registration of respondent-trust - Challenged, vide writ c

-
petition and also vide civil suit uk 8 - Dispute raised as to
whether Registrar, Public Trusts has power to review the order
of registration - Single Judge of High Court disposed of the
writ petition without issuing notice to 'respondents -
, Respondents filed Lett.~rs Patent Appeal - Division Bench 0
held that the Single Judge erred in deciding the matter without
issuing notice, but did not remand the matter to the Single
Judge and allowed the appeal holding that the question raised
could be decided in tf1e pending civil suit u/s. 8 - Propriety
of - Held: Proper - Natural justice requires that respondents E
should have been heard in the matter - Directions!
observations passed by Division Bench cannot be faulted -
""' Dispute in the pending suit be adjudicated in the manner
directed by the Division Bench - Natural justice.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. F
3474 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 29.3.2004 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Judicature Jabalpur bench at Gwalior
in LP.A. No. 156 of 2000. G
:
Vivek Tankha, T.G. Narayanan Nair. Ratna Kaul and
Krishnan Nandakumar for the Appellants.
___..,
1069 H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A Puneet Jain, S.K. Jain, Archna Tiwari, Pratibha Jain, B.S.
}
Banthia and Vikas Upadhayay for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior
~
Bench, allowing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the
respondents. The appeal filed by the present respondents was
c directed against the order of the leaned Single Judge in Writ
Petition 789 of 2000. Preliminary objection was raised by the
present appellant taking the stand that the appeal was not
maintainable as no orders have been passed. Learned counsel
for the present ~ppellant submitted that the order passed by
D the learned Single Judge is not a judgment within the meaning
-
of clause 10 of the Letters Paten:.

3. The appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal submitted
that writ petition was decided without issuing notice to the
appellants before the writ court i.e. present respondents. The
E petition was disposed of on the first day it was listed for
admission at motion hearing stage and after recording
presence of counsel for the State on advance notice.

4. It was submitted that the respondent-trust was not
-'·
F registered at the Public Trust under Section 5 of the Madhya
Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 (in short the 'Act'). It is provided
under Section 8 that any person aggrieved by registration of
the trust may file civil suit challenging registration. It was
submitted that after registration of the trust a writ petition was
G filed. Without issuing notice, learned Single Judge had issued
direction holding therein that the Registrar has power to review
the order of registration. It was also submitted that the writ "I ::
petitioner had filed the civil suit under Section 8 challenging the
registration and in that event petition should have been
dismissed. The Division Bench was of the view that the basic
H r
MUNI KUMAR RAZDAN v. TRIMURTI CHARITABLE 1071
TRUST, GWALIOR & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

question was whether after registration of the trust, Registrar, A
Public Trusts has jurisdiction to revive the order of registration.
After referring to various provisions it was held that the Single
Judge was not justified in deciding the matter without issuing
notice. The High Court, however, held that in view of the fact
that civil suit has been filed there is no need to remand the . B
matter to the Single Judge. The question raised can be
decided in the civil suit. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

5. In the present appeal, the stand was that the Division
Bench should not have decided the Letters Patent Appeal. It C
was pointed out that the Division Bench should not have
interfered with the concurrent finding of the Single Judge
particularly, when the Letters Patent Appeal was not
maintainable.

6. It was also pointed out that the parameters of sub- D
section (6) of Section 8 of the Act have not been kept in view.
It was submitted further that a person can invoke the writ
jurisdiction when he cannot file the suit under sub-sectior) (1)
of Section 8. It is submitted that since the writ petitioner was
not a party before the Registrar at the time of inquiry, it is not E
covered by Section 8.
..I
7. It is to be noted that in the writ petition filed by the
._ present respondent no.1, it was respondent no.3. All the
grievances related to the order of Registrar of Public Trust and
SDO respondent No.2 in the file relating to the present F
respondent no.1. The basic requirement of natural justice
requires that they should have been heard in the matter.

8. The ultimate direction given by the Division Bench reads

-
{

•
as follow:

"Having considered the matter, we would hold that the
single bench has committed an error in not issuing notice
before deciding the writ petition. Normally, in such case
G

the order is to be set aside and the matter should be
H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A remanded back to a single bench for decision of the writ
petition on its merit. But considering the fact that against .....
the order of registrar, Public Trusts, a civil suit u/s 8 of the
act has been filed by the respondent and the appellants
have also been a civil suit for declaration of the title of trust
B and injunction, it will not be appropriate to remand the
matter back to the Single Bench. Questions of title of the
respondent or competency of the settler to create trust can
be decided in the civil suits filed by the parties, before the "
Civil Court. Therefore, questions involved in this case and
c objection to the registration may be raised by the parties
before the civil court where the suits are pending. It is
expected that the suits shall be decided at the earliest by
the trial court say within a period of one year from the date
of communication of this order. We further order that both
the Civil Suits, viz. Civil suit No. 12-A/2000 u/s 8 of the act,
D
pending in the court of :1 Additional District Judge, Gw13lior
and Civil Suit No. 30-A/99 pending in the Court of Eleventh
Civil Judge Class II Gwalior be consolidated and decided
"by a common judgment by same court. Both the civil suits
be transferred to the court of II Additional District Judge,
E Gwalior or to some other court as the District judge-Gwalior
may deem fit for their decision on merit."
..
9. In the aforesaid background without entering into the
_,
issue relating to maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal,
F we feel that the directions/observations of the Division Bench
allowing the appeal filed by the respondents cannot be faulted.
It is needless to say that the dispute in the pending suit(s) shall
be adjudicated in the manner directed by the Division Bench.
We find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
G Appeal dismissed.
8.8.8.
+ ~