REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3474           OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16046 of 2004

Muni Kumar  Razdan

                ….

Appellant

Versus

Trimurti Charitable Trust, Gwalior & Ors. ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

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 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 appellant submitted that  

the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not a judgment within the  

meaning of clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

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 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.   

2

4. It was submitted that the respondent-trust was not registered at the  

Public Trust under Section 5 of the Madhya 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  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  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 question  

was  whether  after  registration  of  the  trust,  Registrar,  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 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  was pointed  out  that  the  

3

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-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-section  (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  

covered by Section 8.        

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  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 the order is to be set aside and the  

4

matter should be 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  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 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, pending in  the court of II Additional District Judge, Gwalior 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, 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,  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.       

5

……..……………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………..……………..............J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)          

       New Delhi, May 08, 2009

6