Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.

Allahabad High Court
Krishna Kumar Sharma vs Navneet Kumar Sharma And Others on 29 January, 2010
                                                                           Court No. 21

                      Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17266 of 2009
                              Krishna Kumar Sharma
                         Navneet Kumar Sharma and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

In the present case, an application had been moved by Navneet Kumar
Sharma under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, alleging himself to be the Trustee
of Jadugir Trust, Garh Road, Meerut, and seeking permission to sell 6000 square
yards of open land. To the said application Prem Kumar Sharma and Sushil Kumar
Sharma, alleging themselves to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of
Manas Kalyan Samiti, filed objections, and contended that the Trust in question was
being governed by the society. The petitioner also appeared and filed his objections
in the said proceedings. On 21.07.2007 the court concerned passed an order to the
effect that as there was serious dispute about the petitioner’s being trustee of the
said trust, as such petitioner should appear himself. Thereafter, petitioner appeared
as court witness on 23.08.2007. Petitioner has stated that Mahesh Kumar Sharma,
who had no concern with the Trust or its property and management, filed an
application for impleadment and the same has been allowed. Petitioner’s contention
is that these were summary proceedings and the impleadment ought not to have
been allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the
present case impleadment application has been arbitrarily allowed, as such writ
petition deserves to be allowed.

Factual position which emerges in the present case is that Navneet Kumar
Sharma filed an application under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, seeking
permission to sell 6000 square yards of open land. In the said proceedings
petitioner appeared and filed objection. Petitioner’s contention is that Mahesh
Kumar Sharma has no concern with the property in dispute. The order dated
18.12.2008 clearly reflects that for coming to a rightful conclusion the application for
impleadment has been allowed. Once the court, seized of the matter, in its wisdom
has chosen to implead the respondent Mahesh Kumar Sharma for coming to a
rightful conclusion, then this Court refuses to interfere in the matter.

Writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.160 seconds.