If Registration Of Public Trust Is Itself Challenged In Appeal, It Becomes Necessary Party To Proceedings: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court observed that if registration of a Public Trust is itself challenged in an appeal, it becomes necessary and proper party to proceedings.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition in against order of Commissioner, Devsthan Department whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 was rejected.

The single-bench of Justice Nupur Bhati observed, "Therefore, upon perusal of the provision, this Court finds that in the present case too, the Public Trust, which was registered by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 19 of the Act of 1950, vide order dated 29.12.2023 (Annex.3), becomes a necessary party for the adjudication of the appeal filed by the respondents no. 3 and 4, inasmuch as they have challenged the said registration itself."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Avin Chhangani while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Deelip Kawadia.

Facts of the case are that the Petitioner submitted Form No. 6 under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1950 for the registration of the Public Trust, Shri Khetpal Bavji (Jai Bherunath) Trust which was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner (First), Devsthan Department, Jaipur. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 20 of the Act of 1950. Thereafter, since the Public Trust was not made a party to the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking impleadment of the Public Trust as a party to the appeal which was rejected by the Commissioner.

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Commissioner has erred in law while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, in as much as after the Assistant Commissioner had allowed the application filed by the petitioner under Form No. 6 of the Act of 1950, the Public Trust becomes a distinct juristic entity and therefore, is a necessary party to the dispute, and ought to have been impleaded in the appeal. He cited Supreme Court's ruling in Sudhir G. Angur and ors. v. M. Sanjeev and ors.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Public Trust is not registered because the Assistant Commissioner had merely recorded a finding in accordance with Section 19 of the Act of 1950, however, the entries as per Section 21 of the Act of 1950 have still not been made, which makes the registration of the Public Trust ineffective. He thus submitted that as the entries have not been made, the Public Trust cannot be considered to be registered in accordance with the law and thus, the Public Trust was rightly not impleaded as party to the appeal. He further submitted that Section 29 of the Act of 1950 bars an unregistered Public Trust from filing a suit to enforce its right and in the instant case, the Public Trust is not registered in accordance with law, therefore, no suit can be heard or decided in any Court, for enforcing the right of a Public Trust which is not registered and thus, the Commissioner has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, for impleading the Public Trust. 

The Court took into account the mandate of the statute, i.e. Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, which provides for a necessary party to be impleaded at any stage of the suit and found that the Public Trust in the present matter was a necessary party.

"...this Court finds that even in the appeal (Annex.4), filed by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner has been made a party in his personal capacity and not in the capacity of the Management Trustee of the Public Trust and if the Public Trust is not impleaded as party respondent in the appeal, then the Public Trust would go unrepresented before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Commissioner, and in case the appeal filed by the respondents is allowed, the rights of the Public Trust would be seriously prejudiced. Therefore, while looking into the facts of the case, the Public Trust satisfies the essentials as stipulated for the impleadment of a party, i.e. it is necessary party for the adjudication of the appeal and secondly, relief has been sought against the registration of the Public Trust by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, by way of laying challenge to the order dated 29.12.2023 (Annex.3) passed by the Assistant Commissioner," the Court observed.

The Court concluded that there is no bar upon the Public Trust to file an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, for impleadment to the appeal inasmuch as the appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 29.12.2023 (Annex.3) vide which the application filed for registration of the Public Trust was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner and therefore, the Public Trust is a necessary and proper party for the adjudication of the appeal.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Ambalal Dhakad vs. Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department (2024:RJ-JD:49905)

Click here to read/ download Order: