Jauhari Lal & Ors. v. Gurudev Ashram Trust & Ors.

1. The instant Application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Appoint the proposed Interim Board of Trustees for Defendant No.1 Trust to take over interim charge of the Trust and Direct the Interim Board of Trustees to propose a scheme for amendment of the Trust Deed dated 22.04.1973 to be placed for consideration of this Hon’ble Court within 10 weeks and Expedite the hearing in the present suit; AND (b) Pass any further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. The Plaintiffs being the Applicants herein are the devotees of Swami Muktananda Paramhamsa (hereinafter referred to as “Baba”) who was a spiritual leader and a leading exponent of the Siddha Yoga philosophy. As per the material on record, Swami started his mission by setting up an Ashram at Village Ganeshpuri, in Thane at Maharashtra in the year 1956. Over the years, the mission grew and attracted spiritual seekers from all over the world. The disciples sought to establish an ashram at Delhi for the purpose of which a public charitable trust was established as “Shri Gurudev Ashram Trust, Delhi” vide Trust Deed dated 22nd April 1973, which is also the subject matter of the dispute before this Court.

3. The land of the Ashram at Delhi was gifted to the Defendant No.1 Trust by the Defendant No. 2 on 11th February 1974, by way of a duly registered Gift Deed. The Defendant No. 2 herein was one of the original Trustees of the Defendant No. 1 Trust, along with four other Trustees, all of whom were appointed by Baba in accordance with the provisions of the Trust Deed, which required the appointment of Trustees to be done by Baba. Out of the five trustees nominated, two of them died and two subsequently resigned. Consequently, only one trustee survived. As per the record, Baba took mahasamadhi on 02.10.1982 having named Swami Nityananda and Gurumayi Chidivilasananda as his spiritual successors. According to the terms of the deed, the vacancies in the Trust were to be filled by nomination by Swami Muktananda Paramhansa in terms of Clause 8 of the Deed which is extracted below: -

4. In view of the aforesaid, a vacuum has arisen in the Board of Trustees for the management of the Trust, and in the interest of the public charitable religious Trust. Efforts were made by this Court to appoint Interim Board of Trustees on a few occasions; however the vacuum as yet has not been able to be filled up. Accordingly, a Scheme for Amendment of the Trust Deed needs to be finalised to address the same and to pave the way forward for the effective administration of the Trust in question.

5. Before adverting to the merits and contents of the instant application and the averments made therein, it is pertinent to refer to the chronology of the instant matter. The instant suit was previously disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while appointing trustees of the trust vide its order dated 15.10.2015. An Appeal was filed by the Plaintiff herein against the said order. The Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 15.2.2016 set aside the order of disposal of suit and revived the suit without interfering with the appointment of the appointment of Trustees, and held as under: “11. This Court is of the opinion that except reading the impugned judgment as an interim order, there is no manner by which it can be sustained in law. As highlighted in the Privy Council’s decision and the other judgments of the Supreme Court, Section 92 has occupied a unique and special feature of civil procedure in India. The Court acquires an extremely wide jurisdiction in public interest to oversee the management, affairs and inject the correct measures wherever necessary in the functioning of the public trusts. Such being the case, the Single Judge in this Court’s opinion could not have by one stroke appointed Trustees by consent permanently and at the same time disposed of the suit without examining the changes to the Trust Deed and other instruments which govern its functioning. That duty could not have been abdicated as it were - and has regrettably happened in the circumstances of this case. The Court’s final order would necessarily have to be in the form of the decree embodying the changes it would accept after the proposals are furnished to it and duly considered by it upon a proper hearing of all the parties and taking into consideration such materials as are relevant for arriving at those conclusions. Till such time, the appointments and measures, if any, are only tentative and meant to assist in the final resolution of the dispute rather than ending the entire suit.

12. In light of the above observations, the impugned judgment is set aside only to the extent that the suit shall be remitted for further proceedings. It is, however, made clear that the appointment of the Trustees is not interfered with. Depending upon the report of the Trustees and the suggestions made, the learned Single Judge shall proceed with the matter further and after taking into consideration all the materials and the evidence before it, the Court shall render its final judgment and decree.

13. The suit is accordingly revived in the above terms and listed before the concerned Single Judge for appropriate proceedings on 30.03.2016.

14. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.”

6. The said judgment was assailed in Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, upon hearing all the parties, disposed the said SLP (C) No. 7477/2016 titled “Dayawati Khanna & Anr. v. Jauhari Lal & Ors.” vide its order dated 04.08.2022, finding no fault with the impugned Order of the Division Bench of this Court, and remitted the case to this Court while passing the following directions:

7. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs submitted that the Plaintiffs are before this Court by way of the instant application seeking appropriate interim orders including but not limited to appointment of interim trustees to ensure smooth functioning of the Defendant No. 1 Trust. It is stated that the resignation of the Independent Trustees previously appointed has completely jeopardized the functioning and day-to-day running of the Defendant No.1 Trust and has brought the activities of the Defendant No.1 Trust to a grinding halt.

8. It is submitted that if Interim Trustees are appointed by this Court under their supervision, the day-to-day activities of the trust can be resumed. The Interim Trustees can form management committees that would be delegated with the various activities of Defendant No. 1 Trust under the supervision of the Interim Trustees. It is imperative that this Court urgently grants the reliefs prayed to ensure the proper running of the Defendant No. 1 Trust to realize the basic objects of the Trust.

9. Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Advocate appeared for D-1 and D-4, Mr. Sanjeev Anand, Sr. Advocate appeared for D-5 and Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate appeared for D-7. Learned senior counsels for the nonapplicants vehemently opposed the submissions of the plaintiff/applicant, they however fairly conceded that the non-applicants have no objection if an Interim Body of Trustees is appointed by this Court consisting of independent and esteemed members of the society for the proper functioning of the said Trust.

10. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the parties.