Samunder Singh and Others v. Mahendra Narendra Charitable Education Trust (Regd) and Others

IN T

Samunder Singh Mahendra Naren Education Trust

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

Mr

for

MANDEEP PA CM-22482-CII

Thi parties.

It i error, defendant the petitioners i way of the prese

For submissions ma allowed and d performa respo parties is taken o

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

CR

De

h and Others

VERSUS ndra Charitable t (Regd.) and Others

N'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDE r. Rakesh Nehra, Sr. Advocate w r. Sahil Nehra, Advocate for the p r. Ravinder Singh Randhawa, Sr. r. K.S.Riar and Ms. Tarranum M respondents No.1 to 3. -.- ANNU J. of 2025 is is an application for placing is stated in para No.2 of the ap t No.10 could not be impleaded a intend to make defendant No.10 ent application. r the reasons stated in the a ade by the learned counsel for efendant No.10 – Virender s/ ndent No.5, subject to all jus on record.

JAB AND HARYANA ARH R-7899-2025 (O&M) cided on:- 05.12.2025

....Petitioner

....Respondents EEP PANNU with petitioners. Advocate with adan, Advocates on record the amended memo plication that due to typographi as a party to the petition. Therefo 0 as performa respondent No.5 applications and in view of r the applicant, the application /o Rishal Singh is impleaded st exceptions. Amended memo

- o of ical ore, by n is as

1.

(defendant No Raghuvinder (d Sarup Narayana No.8) and Trip Charitable Edu others. Defenda Rishal Singh) ha petition. Brief Facts

2.

is a registered ch Education Trus registered trust the Trust, havin deed upon the

06.06.2024. Pla No.2 was broug Smt. Mahender nominated as Vi

3.

It i manage charita objectives, vario years. Lease d e present Civil Revision Petition o.1), Sukhvinder @ Sukhm efendant No.4), Geeta (defendan a (defendant No.6), Urmila (def pta (defendant No.9) in the civ cation Trust registered and ot ants No.3 (Sanjana wife of Sukh ave been impleaded as proforma e case of the plaintiffs, as set ou haritable educational trust known st (hereinafter referred to as t deed dated 27.11.1998. Plaintiff ng automatically assumed the po death of the founder Chairman aintiff No.3 is the Secretary of th ght up and educated by Sh. Na Kaur, who treated her as their ice-Chairman of the Trust during s further averred that Plaintiff N able and educational institutio ous parcels of land were leased deeds dated 15.02.1999, 17.0

n has been filed by Samunder Sin minder Singh (defendant No nt No.5), Satvinder son of Late fendant No.7), Ravinder (defend vil suit titled Mahendra Naren thers versus Samunder Singh a khvinder) and No. 10 (Virender a respondents in the present revis ut in the plaint, is that Plaintiff N n as Mahendra Narendra Charita the 'trust'), constituted through f No.2 is presently the Chairman osition under the terms of the tr n, Sh. Narender Singh Nandal, he Trust. It is pleaded that Plain arender Singh Nandal and his w daughter, and accordingly she w g their lifetime. No.1 has been constituted to run a ons and, in furtherance of th and gifted to the Trust over seve

9.2004 and symbolic possess

- ngh o.2), Sh. dant ndra s/o sion No.1 able h a n of rust on ntiff wife was hese eral

delivered on 14 Virender Singh possession of ap estate of village constructed a sc open yard and b Adarsh Senior S

4.

competent educ recognition up t income tax ret accordance with financial docum management and

5.

Acc and co-sharers intentions to dis is alleged that in of the school, Plaintiff No.2, with police and assert that the d that they are est functioning of th

4.05.2008, as well as a gift de h, were relied upon to show pproximately 40 Kanal 13 Marla e Kutana, Tehsil and District Ro chool building comprising classr boundary wall with gates, and ha Secondary School therein. e plaintiffs assert that the sch cational authorities since 1999 to Class 12. The Trust operates turns, and conducts all financ h the trust deed. Various resolut ments, and other annexures are d continuous possession. cording to the plaintiffs, the de of the erstwhile landowners h sturb the peaceful possession of n July 2024, the defendants attem forcibly entered the premises, and threatened to dispossess th administrative authorities, but n defendants have no right, title or topped from interfering, having he school for many years.

eed dated 14.05.2008 executed that the Trust came into law a of land situated within the reven ohtak. Over this land, Plaintiff N rooms, hall, storerooms, bathroom as been running Mahendra Naren hool has been duly recognised and thereafter granted perman a functional bank account, subm cial and administrative affairs tions passed by the Trust, copies relied upon to demonstrate law fendants, who are family memb have recently developed mala f f the Trust over the suit property mpted to interfere in the function , took away records, manhand he Trust. Complaints were lodg no action was taken. The plaint interest in the school premises a acquiesced to the construction a

- by wful nue No.1 ms, ndra by nent mits in s of wful bers fide y. It ning dled ged

6.

will cause irre functioning of th with the applica

7.

In t pleaded that the present form, th Chairman nor P therefore the pl pleaded that no also hit by Sec managing the sc school building

8.

On automatically b Singh Nandal. Chairman of the Chairman. All a plaintiffs such a are alleged to be over the Trust p the daughter of dispute the alle asserting that th mentioned by th e plaintiffs plead that unless res eparable injury to the adminis he school. Hence, the suit for pe ation under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 the written statement filed on b e present suit for permanent inj he plaintiffs have concealed mat President of the Trust, and plain laintiffs have no locus standi to cause of action has arisen in fav ction 92 CPC. The defendants chool for many years, and the pl or its affairs; hence, the suit for n merits, the defendants denie ecame Chairman of the Trust As per the defendants, it is d e Trust and who became Chairm alleged resolutions, proceedings as those dated 29.04.2024, 09.05 e false, fabricated and procured b property. It is further denied tha late Sh. Narender Singh Nandal eged membership and authorit he plaintiffs have no concern w hem are illegal and void.

strained, the acts of the defenda stration of the Trust and to ermanent injunction was filed alo 2 CPC seeking interim protectio ehalf of defendants No.1 to 9, i njunction is not maintainable in terial facts. Plaintiff No.2 is neit ntiff No.3 is not its Secretary, a o file the present suit. It is furt vour of the plaintiffs, and the sui assert that they are running a laintiffs are not in possession of injunction does not lie. ed the claim that plaintiff N after the demise of Shri Naren defendant No.10 who is the Vi man after the death of the foun and documents relied upon by

5.2024, 08.06.2024 and 05.09.20 by the plaintiffs only to take con at plaintiff No.2 was ever treated l and his wife. The defendants a ty of plaintiff No.2 in the Tru with the Trust and the proceedi

- ants ong n. it is n its ther ther it is No.2 nder ice-nder trol d as also ust,

9.

by them since l original land-ow unpartitioned, w the plaintiffs' cl No.2 forcibly at objection, lodge No.2 stole the p which complain dealings, includ them after the de

10.

In plaintiffs, throu manipulated an Trust property. defendant No.1 allegedly resign According to th resignation is i defendants rely substantiate the manipulated and

11.

e defendants further state that th long, being the founder member wners. It is pleaded that the with each co-sharer having inter laim of exclusive possession is f ttempted to take over the school ed false complaints. It is further p proceedings book and other rec nt was made to the police. The ding the payment of staff salar eath of the founder Chairman. their additional written stateme ugh the replication and newly d fabricated proceedings with It is pleaded that the alleged pro 0 was shown to have been ap ned within days, are false and he defendants, any prudent perso inherently suspicious and clear upon affidavits of persons who eir plea that the documents d prepared in collusion with outs ey therefore prayed dismissal of

he school is being run and manag rs and successors in interest of land continues to be joint a rest in every inch thereof, and t false. They also allege that plain premises on 22.07.2024 and, up pleaded that on 25.07.2024 plain cords from the school building, defendants assert that all financ ies, have always been handled ent, the defendants submit that filed documents, have introdu the sole intention of grabbing oceedings dated 31.05.2023, wh ppointed Chairman and therea d manufactured by the plainti on would conclude that such abr rly indicative of fabrication. T allegedly attended said meeting produced by the plaintiffs siders. f the stay application.

- ged that ntiff pon ntiff for cial by uced here fter iffs. rupt s to

Findings of tria

12.

& 2 read with S resolution dated found it suspic handwriting, wh dated 29.04.202 are dependent u

20.06.2023 is u become chairpe the salary slips, not show that p No.1. Rather the March 2025, pl running the scho Findings of the

13.

Ag appeal. The app clearly provides automatically a resolution dated Singh Nandal h life time. The respondents. A performing her al Court e trial Court dismissed the appli Section 151 CPC filed by the pla d 20.06.2023 does not inspire c cious due to inconsistencies su hich cast doubt on its authenticit 24, 09.05.2024, 08.06.2024, 05.0 upon resolution dated 20.06.20 under challenge, no subsequen rson can be relied upon. Furthe which have been placed on reco plaintiff No.2 and 3 are running e salary slips of the employees o laced on record by the defend ool. e lower appellate Court grieved by the order dated 0 pellate Court observed that Tru s that upon the death of the C assume the office of Chairma d 09.05.2024 shows that the fou ad formally nominated plaintiff chairmanship of plaintiff No.2 After perusal of record it ackn duties as Chairman. Further, th

ication filed under Order 39 Rul aintiff. The trial Court observed t onfidence of the Court. The Co uch as use of different inks a ty. Further, subsequent resoluti

9.2024, 10.11.2024 and 07.02.20

¶023When earlier resolution da nt resolution, vide plaintiff N er the trial Court observed that fr ord as Annexure P-20 and P-21, g the school on behalf of plain of the school from January 2025 ants show that the defendants

06.05.2025, the plaintiffs filed ust deed No.6903 dated 27.11.19 Chairman, the Vice Chairman sh an until further nomination. T under Chairman, late Sh. Naren f No.2 as Vice Chairman during was not challenged by any of nowledged that plaintiff No.2 he trial Court did not appreciate

- le 1 that ourt ons ated No.2 rom , do ntiff 5 to are an hall nder his 2 is

legal effect of presumption ari

14.

Aft material on reco allowed the app possession, man known as Manh

15.

Ag filed the present Findings of this

16.

Fro broadly undispu Education Trust of its creation. B property under t who presently m were submitted other, concernin authority and co existence of the administrative a

17.

relating to the fu possession and and plaintiff No f the registered trust deed dat sing therefrom. ter hearing the arguments of bo ord, the appellate Court reversed peal. It restrained the defendant nagement and administration o hendra Narender Adarsh Senior S grieved by the order of the low t revision petition. s Court om the pleadings of both sides, c uted. It is not in controversy th t is a registered trust and that a t Both parties also accept that a sc the banner of the Trust for many manages it. There is also no disp to various authorities, includin ng alleged interference at the ontrol over the Trust is contest e school on the suit land, and th authorities in July 2024 stand adm e parties are at serious varianc unctioning, control, and internal management of the school. The o.3 are the valid office-bearers

ted 27.11.1998 and the statut oth the sides and appreciating d the findings of the trial Court a ts from interfering in the peace of the Trust and school build Secondary School. wer appellate Court, the defenda certain foundational facts emerge hat Mahendra Narendra Charita trust deed was executed at the ti chool has been running over the s y years, though they differ regard ute that after July 2024, complai ng the police, by one side or school premises. Thus, while ted, the existence of the Trust, he fact that the parties approach mitted. e on almost every material asp administration of the Trust and e plaintiffs assert that plaintiff N of the Trust and rely upon seve

- tory eful ding ants e as able ime suit ding ints hed pect No.2

resolutions and defendants, how resolutions and Chairman, of th alleged resolutio

18.

Sim premises. The p property and ru been managing not in possessio entry into the s

25.07.2024, wh defendants.

19.

suit land. Whi functioning, the partitioned, and is controversy r the salary of sta

20.

Hav disputed facts, a considered opin whereas the L adjudication at t entries in the proceedings boo wever, categorically deny the assert that defendant No.10 is he Trust and that the plaintiffs h ons. milarly, the parties are divided r plaintiffs claim to be in peacefu unning the school, whereas the and running the school since in on. The defendants also allege th school on 22.07.2024 and later hereas the plaintiffs allege int e parties are also in dispute rega ile the plaintiffs assert posses e defendants claim that the land that each co-sharer has rights in regarding who lawfully operates aff, with each side alleging mis ving considered the pleadings and the findings recorded by bot nion that the Trial Court has ad ower Appellate Court has ex the interlocutory stage.

ok to establish their authority. T authenticity and validity of th the Vice-Chairman, and therea ave fabricated and manipulated regarding possession of the sch ul and lawful possession of the defendants contend that they h nception and that the plaintiffs hat plaintiff No.2 attempted forci removed the proceedings book terference and obstruction by arding the nature of rights over ssion consistent with the Tru continues to be joint, has not b n every portion of it. Further, th s the Trust bank account and p suse or manipulation by the oth of the parties, the admitted a th courts below, this Court is of dopted the correct legal approa xceeded the permissible limits

- hese after hool suit ave are ible k on st's een here pays her. ach,

21.

It i parties hinges

20.06.2023, wh Vice-Chairperso and from the pl seriously dispute and existence o adjudicated afte suspicion arises treated the same

22.

Sim recent salary sli continued admi recent salary sl management. W The Lower App bills as conclus settled principl suit/application,

23.

Mo 39 Rules 1 and disputed questio authorised to r fabricated, wh These issues is an admitted position that the upon the validity and auth hich allegedly resulted in nomin on/Chairperson of the Trust. Fr leadings already analysed, it is ed, its genuineness, signatures, m of two inks, all raise debatable er evidence is led. The Trial Cou s regarding the document, where e almost as an established fact wi milarly, the Trial Court also rel ips have been produced by the p inistration of the institution, w lips (Jan–Mar 2025) supporting Whether those slips are fabricate pellate Court, however, treated sive proof of current possessio e that possession must be es , and must be based on current an ore importantly, at the stage of d d 2 CPC, the Court is not ex ons such as who is the lawful run the school, whether parti hether a particular party is require evidence, expert exa

e central controversy between henticity of the resolution da nation/elevation of plaintiff no.2 rom the material placed on rec evident that the said resolution manner of preparation, handwriti and triable issues that can only urt rightly observed that prima fa eas the Lower Appellate Court ithout subjecting it to trial scrutin lied upon the circumstance that plaintiffs to prima facie show th whereas the defendants have fi g their version of possession a ed or not is again a matter of tr older resolutions and older sal on, which is inconsistent with stablished as on the date of nd credible documents. deciding an application under Or xpected to conclusively determ Chairperson of the Trust, who icular resolutions are genuine s duly elected or nominat amination (if necessary), cro

-ated 2 as cord n is ing, y be acie has ny. t no heir iled rial. lary rder mine o is or ted. oss-

examination, an itself to the thre and irreparable amount to a p impermissible.

24.

On whether the pla possession over these essential foundational re plaintiffs' mana complaints and forcible occupat made out in favo

25.

Thi with or controve did it address th Trial Court. Ins earlier docume assumption tha proceedings.

26.

appellants/defen Trust and, there authority of plai nd a full trial. The Lower App ee well-settled principles, prima loss, has engaged in detailed pre-trial adjudication of the co n the other hand, the Trial Co aintiffs had been able to show a r the suit property at the time of ingredients were doubtful du esolution of 20.06.2023, lack agement, presence of recent salar counter-complaints relating to tion, the Trial Court rightly conc our of the plaintiffs and hence th is Court also notes that the Lo ert the Trial Court's reasoning on he suspicious nature of the impu stead, it proceeded on the assum nts automatically confer prese at is neither supported by law e respondents/plaintiffs ha ndants no.1 to 9 are not the elec fore, are complete strangers hav intiff no.2 or to dispute the mana

pellate Court, instead of restrict facie case, balance of convenien factual findings which, in eff ore merits. Such an approach ourt confined itself to examin a prima facie right and prima fa filing of the suit. Finding that b ue to the disputed nature of of recent documents support ry slips produced by defendants a alleged interference and attemp cluded that no prima facie case w he injunction could not be grante ower Appellate Court did not d n absence of recent salary slips, ugned resolution pointed out by mption that earlier resolutions a ent entitlement to injunction, w nor by the nature of inte ave vehemently argued t cted or nominated members of ving no locus standi to challenge agement and possession of the Tr

- ting nce, fect, h is ning acie both ting pted was d. deal nor an rim that

property. It is fu through any auth cannot claim any

27.

Thi more than one r with the Trust i and documents family member since long, and claim is valid or Therefore, the q dispute and ca application unde sake of argume their authority o the plaintiff mus merely because squarely on the the Vice-Chairp leadership, is in defendants, are a

28.

As resolution dated the face of the r slips or contem urther pointed out that the Trust horised representative and, cons y right in the suit property. is contention, at this interlocut reason. Firstly, the nature and ex s itself a disputed question of fa on record. The defendants ha s, life members, and persons w have also produced recent sala r not is a matter that can only b question of 'locus standi' itself is annot be conclusively determin er Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC nt that defendants no.1 to 9 ha or membership of the Trust at th st stand on his own legs. A temp e the defendant has not shown plaintiffs to prima facie establis person/Chairperson of the Trust, settled possession of the school administering and controlling th already discussed, the very foun d 20.06.2023 is seriously dispute record, and requires full-fledged mporary documents establishing

itself is not arrayed as a defend sequently, the answering defenda tory stage, cannot be accepted xtent of the defendants' relations act, as reflected from the pleadi ave asserted that they are foun who have been running the sch ary slips of the staff. Whether t be adjudicated after evidence is l s intertwined with the very issue ned at the stage of deciding C. Secondly, even assuming for ave not been able to fully establ his stage, the law is well settled t porary injunction cannot be gran n a better right. The burden sh that plaintiff no.2 validly beca that plaintiff no.1 Trust, under l and that the plaintiffs, and not e institution on the date of the su ndation of the plaintiffs' claim, ed, shows signs of manipulation evidence. Further, no recent sal g plaintiffs' administration of

- dant ants for ship ngs nder hool this led. s in an lish that nted lies ame her uit. n on

school have bee cannot derive an

29.

In c in their favour, petition is here learned Addition

30.

Pen

December 05, 2 tripti

Whethe

Whethe en filed. In the absence of such ny advantage merely by asserting conclusion, the plaintiffs have fa irrespective of the defendants' p eby accepted. Impugned order nal District and Sessions Judge, nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

prima facie material, the plaint g that defendants have no locus. ailed to establish a prima facie ri position. Consequently, the revis dated 16.10.2025 passed by Rohtak is set aside. stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

- tiffs ight