Santal Mission Of Northern Churches Dispute | Jharkhand High Court Holds Declaration Against 1968 Transfer Barred By Limitation, Non-Joinder

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed two Letters Patent Appeals arising from disputes over the properties of the Santal Mission of Northern Churches, holding that although a suit instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable, no case was made out to declare a 1968 Instrument of Transfer illegal, inoperative or non-binding.A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar also held that the declaratory relief was barred by limitation and could not have been granted without impleading the transferee company, the Trust Association of Northern Evangelical Lutheran Church, as a defendant. The dispute traced its origin to 1880, when Rev. Hans Peter Doerresen and Rev. Laurentius Olaves Skrefsrud founded the missionary society initially known as the Indian Home Mission to the Santals and later as the Santal Mission of Northern Churches. A Trust Deed dated April 21, 1880 was executed to secure properties acquired for the mission. A scheme for management of the trust properties was later settled in Title Suit No. 1 of 1914 and incorporated into a supplementary trust deed dated December 8, 1920. The Evangelical Lutheran Churches subsequently evolved into the Trust Association of Northern Evangelical Lutheran Church, which became a self-governing and independent Church and was registered as a company under the Companies Act, 1956. On February 10, 1968, the existing trustees of the Santal Mission of Northern Churches executed an Instrument of Transfer introducing the company as a new trustee. In 1971, persons claiming to be beneficiaries of the trust instituted Title Suit No. 5 of 1971 under Section 92 CPC after obtaining the Advocate General's consent. They sought, among other reliefs, settlement of a scheme for proper management of the trust, removal of the existing trustees and a declaration that the Instrument of Transfer dated February 10, 1968 was illegal and inoperative. However, the transferee company itself was not impleaded, though its directors were arrayed as defendants. The Trial Court decreed the suit and declared the Instrument of Transfer illegal, inoperative and non-binding. In a connected suit, Title Suit No. 11 of 1971, the Trial Court granted substantially all the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. On appeal, a Single Judge of the Patna High Court allowed the appeal arising from Title Suit No. 5 of 1971 and restored the Instrument of Transfer. The present Letters Patent Appeals challenged that common judgment dated June 30, 1992. The appellants contended that Title Suit No. 5 of 1971 had been properly instituted under Section 92 CPC and that the First Appellate Court had ignored evidence concerning alleged misconduct of the trustees and an unauthorised and fraudulent transfer of the trust properties. They also argued that the Instrument of Transfer was invalid because one of the trustees had acted through a power of attorney, allegedly contrary to Sections 47 and 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. Mr Sudhir Kumar Sharma, appearing for the intervener, submitted that the Indian Trusts Act applied only to private trusts, whereas the Santal Mission of Northern Churches was a public trust governed by its trust deed and the court-framed scheme. The respondents defended the appellate judgment. Mr Anil Kumar submitted that a declaration that the Instrument of Transfer was invalid and illegal ab initio could not be granted in a suit under Section 92 CPC, particularly after the Trial Court rejected the principal reliefs of framing a scheme and removing the trustees. Suit Maintainable, But Relief Not Made OutThe High Court held that maintainability under Section 92 CPC had to be examined on the basis of the allegations in the plaint. Since the plaint alleged breach of trust and mismanagement and the prescribed procedural formalities had been complied with, the suit was maintainable and properly instituted.However, the Court clarified that maintainability alone was insufficient to decree the suit. The allegations had to be proved before relief could be granted. The reliefs for framing a scheme and removing the trustees had been rejected, and no case was made out for declaring the Instrument of Transfer illegal or inoperative. The Bench observed that the Trial Court had proceeded to invalidate the Instrument of Transfer despite refusing the two principal reliefs founded on the alleged breach of trust. The Court held:“Thus, Title Suit No. 05/1971 was maintainable, properly constituted and instituted. However, the relief to formulate a scheme for the administration of the Trust or its properties, or to remove its existing trustees, was correctly denied. Further, no case was made out for the relief to declare the Instrument of Transfer dated 10.02.1968 illegal, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs.” Declaratory Relief Barred By LimitationThe Court further held that the declaratory relief was governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes ...

Santal Mission Of Northern Churches Dispute | Jharkhand High Court Holds Declaration Against 1968 Transfer Barred By Limitation, Non-Joinder

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Santal Mission Of Northern Churches Dispute | Jharkhand High Court Holds Declaration Against 1968 Transfer Barred By Limitation, Non-Joinder

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers