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


Allahabad High Court
Lakhpat Rai vs Durga Prasad And Anr. on 23 May, 1928
Equivalent citations: AIR 1928 All 758

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application in revision by one Lakbpat Rai who was manager of a Dharamsala in Meerut, under a deed executed by Mt. Sundar Kunwar on 9th December 1908.

2. One Durga Prasad, who describes himself as a respectable Hindu citizen of Meerut, a Brahman by caste, and a Secretary of the Dharmasthan Sudhar Committee, Meerut, presented an application to the District Judge of Meerut praying that the trustees of the Trust created by Mt. Sundar Kunwar be directed to furnish the petitioner through the District Judge (1) with particulars as to the details of the trust property as they existed on the date of the application (2), the names of persons to whom each property is given on rent (3), the income derived from the trust and the expenditure incurred and (4) the account of the Trust for the last three years to be examined and audited through some certified auditor.

3. Objection was taken by Lakhpat Rai, among other grounds, on the ground that the petitioner was not a person interested in the trust within the meaning of Section 3 Act 14 of 1S20 and, therefore, the order of the learned District Judge was incompetent. Section 3 provides that any person having an interest in any express or constructive trust created or existing for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature may apply by petition to the Court for reliefs for which the present petitioner has applied.

4. We are of opinion that the words “having an interest in a trust” must in each case depend upon the nature of the trust. Lakhpat Rai was the trustee of a Dharmsala constructed and dedicated under the deed of 9th December 1908, and Durga Prasad in our opinion had an interest in that trust inasmuch as he was entitled to stay in that Dharmsala and as Secretary of the Dharmasthan Sudhar Committee, Meerut.

5. We are of opinion that the view taken by the learned District Judge is correct and this application is dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant personally.

6. The stay order of this Court dated 16th June 1927, is discharged.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.152 seconds.