[Management Of Trust] Public Trusts Act Doesn't Mandate Framing Of Issues By District Court, Legislative Intent To Provide Speedy Remedy: MP High Court

In discussing Section 26 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, the MP High Court has held that framing of issues is not a mandatory procedure before passing final orders in cases of management of trusts.

The single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Jain said that the scheme of Sections 26-31 in the 1951 Act did not contemplate framing of issues, either expressly or by necessary implication.

“…the District Court has already held that points of determination will be framed while finally deciding the matter. The Court is not barred from framing issues and/or from taking evidence. However, the discretion exercised by the Court in refusing to frame issues cannot be interfered with by holding it to be a violation of mandatory provision”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur opined.

The court pointed out that the objective of Section 27 is to provide a 'speedy efficacious remedy' in matters of the management of a trust. 

As per Section 26 of the Act, if a trust is not being properly managed, the registrar of public trusts has the option to apply to the District Judge to take corrective measures in that matter.

The powers of the District Judge under Section 26 include removing trustees, appointing new trustees, allocation of a specific portion of trust property for a particular purpose, formulating a scheme of management of trust property, and giving directions as to how the funds of a trust whose original object has failed must be spent.

Justice Vivek Jain observed that the scheme of the Act of 1951 did not provide for a “trial”, but an “inquiry.” 

"The mandatory provisions as applicable to trial of a regular civil suit cannot be mechanically applied to proceedings under Section 26 of the Act of 1951,” the court explained further how the proceedings under Section 26 can't be equated with a full-fledged trial.

While dismissing the plea, the court also noted that since Section 27(1) talks about conducting 'inquiry' and passing appropriate orders, the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the entire procedure for trial of a civil suit must be adhered to as far as Sections 26 and 27 is concerned can't be considered viable.

The court was hearing a plea by the President, Secretary, Vice President, Auditor, Treasurer, and Deputies of Shri 1008 Digamber Jain Atshai Kshetra Papaora Public Trust.

They were challenging an order passed by Principal District Judge, Tikamgarh in the proceedings under Section 26 of the Act. By the said order, the District Court had refused the petitioners' application for framing issues under Order 14 Rules 1 and 3 read with Section 151 of CPC.

Advocate Praveen Dubey appeared for the petitioners. Advocates Satyendra Jain and Amitabh Bharti represented the respondents.

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Tevraiya & Ors v. The Registrar Public Trust And Sub Divisional Officer Tikamgarh & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 19978 of 2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 27

Click Here To Read/ Download Order