JUDGMENT
G. SIVARAJAN, J.
The petitioner is a trust created by the last will and testament of one Dr. (Mrs.) Sumathy S. Menon who died on 30th April, 1989. She was a leading physician and gynaecologist in Calicut. She executed a will dt. 5th Nov., 1988, and also executed a codicil dt. 26th March, 1989 evidenced by Exts..Pl and P2, as per which she made one Mrs. Leela Raghava Menon and Mr. V. Raghava Menon executors and they were directed to handover the property specified in Schedule C of Ext. Pl to the petitioner-trust to carry on the objects of the trust, namely, providing medical relief, dissemination of medical knowledge, research and study. The C Schedule comprises the lands and buildings where the hospital is located excluding the residential building and appurtenant land not exceeding 30 cents. It is stated that at the first meeting of the trustees held on 10th May, 1989 they appointed Mr. Vengalil Raghava. Menon as chairman and Mrs. V. Susheela. Raja as managing trustee of the trust. It is stated that they also framed rules, regulations and bye-laws evidenced by Ext. P3.
2. The petitioher-trust, thereafter made Ext. P4 application before the CIT, Kochi, for registration of the trust under s. 12A(a) of the IT Act, 1961 on 15th Sept., 1989. The said application was initially rejected by the CIT as per Ext. P5. Thereafter petitioner filed another application Ext. P7 after rectifying the defects pointed out in Ext. P6 which was also rejected by Ext. P9. The petitioner again wrote to the CIT, evidenced by Ext. Pll letter. Subsequently the CIT called for certain details in Ext. P12 communication, which was furnished by the petitioner as per Ext. P13. Thereafter the CIT issued Ext. P14 communication stating that the registration cannot be granted for the following reasons:
(a) The genuineness of the will is disputed by one of the legal,heirs of Dr. (Mrs.) Sumathy S. Menon before a Court of law.
(b) Though there is stipulation in the will regarding the creation of a trust, no trust deed is seen made so far.
The petitioner was directed to make a fresh application after the validity of the will is established through the Court.
3. On receipt of Ext. P14, the petitioner submitted Ext. P15 representation to the 1st respondent for reconsideration of the matter, which was again disposed of by Ext. P16 communication, whereby the petitioner was informed that there is no ground existing at present to reconsider the issue. It was also stated that after the dispute regarding the will is settled, the question of registration under s. 12A can be considered.
4. The petitioner has filed this original petition challenging Exts. P5, P9, P14 and P16 issued by the 2nd respondent and also seeks for a direction to the respondents to grant registration under s. 12A of the Act to the petitioner society from the date of application.
5. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent. The gist of the averments contained in the counter- affidavit is that the application for registration under S. 12A can be considered only after the dispute regarding the subject-matter of the trust is settled by the civil Court.
6. Sri P. Balachandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the dispute with regard to the will has now been settled by the parties and that a compromise decree has been passed in the said case on 27th.Oct., 1994 in OS No. 72/1991 of the sub-Court, Kozhikode. Learned counsel also submAtted that there is no. bar in creating a, trust,by a will as in the instant case.
7. I also heard Sri N.R.K. Nair, learned counsel for the respondent.
8. In Exts. P14 and P16 communication, the 2nd respondent, 4 stated. that the question of grant of registration will be considered after the dispute regarding the will is settled. Now the the learned. counsel a petitioner.
Petitioner submits that the dispute is settled in 1994 by the compromise’decree and that it has become final, the~ petitioner can I bring thi’s to the ‘notice of the respondents enabling the respondents to consider ‘The application for registration submitted by the petitioner afresh in the light of the above.
9 In the circumstances, I am of the view that Without going into the merits of the contentions taken by the petitioner and by the respondents in the pleadings; in this case, the 2nd respondent can he directed to consider Ext. P4 application submitted by the petitioner together with the subsequent representations Exts. P71 P11 and P15’in the light of Various documents already produced and to be produced by the petitioner with notice and opportunityto him, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the matter and it is for the ‘ 2nd respondent to consider the matter untrammelled by whatever observations made in Ext6: P5, P, P14 and P 16,
The Original’Petition is disposed of as above’.
OPEN