Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1380 - HC - Indian LawsIllegal transfer of property of Trust - misappropriation of property of deity - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the properties were endowed to the deity i.e. Shree Ram Jankiji and the trust was formed in 1948 for the purpose of serving the deity and also for managing the properties of the deity. From recital of the trust deed, it is also quite clear that the property belongs to the deity, which has been mentioned in 1987 deed that since unwarranted elements have entered into the Committee and the properties are being mismanaged, it was felt necessary to cancel the earlier deed of trust and reconstitute a fresh one. This was the background of constituting and registering the fresh trust deed of 1987. Clause 9 of the trust deed of 1987 clearly prohibits the committee/sevayat or any one from selling or transferring or settling any land of the temple/deity. The Founder of the Trust deed of 1948 and that of 1987 was Mahanth Shree Janki Jivan Sharan, Chela-late Sri Ramdas Paramhans. Suddenly, on 20.9.2005, a separate deed was created and registered. From perusal of 2005 trust deed, one can understand that since some of the old trustees died or some of them are unable to perform the duty, it is necessary to reconstitute it. This Court, prima facie, feels that this permission of the Board obtained in the year 1994 is by misrepresentation/fraud. This permission became the basis of the order of the Judicial Commissioner. An act, which is prima facie, bad and fraudulent in nature, cannot get validation by the order of the Judicial Commissioner. Thus, prima facie, the order of the Judicial Commissioner, which may be based on misrepresentation and fraudulent act, cannot be relied upon. It is well settled principle that fraud vitiates everything - in the trust deed of 1987, there was a specific bar of transfer or sale of properties. If that be the situation, then how in the year 1994, a permission was obtained and subsequent connected action was taken by the trustees to transfer the properties. All these actions genuinely create a great doubt about the intention of the trustees and, prima facie, this Court feels that the deed of 2005 was prepared against the wishes of the founder of the trust with some ulterior motive. The Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) is directed to investigate and take appropriate action at the earliest and conclude the same, preferably within six months from today. All the parties will cooperate with the investigation. The State should take all consequent action for restoring the lands in favour of the deity, depending upon the final outcome of the C.B.I. investigation. Petition allowed.
|