Full Text
#24 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24.08.2016 DARSHAN TRUST AND ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Meet Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Ramni Taneja, Advocate
Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal), GNCTD with Mr. Rajpal, Sub-Registrar-III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. I have heard Mr. Meet Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel (Criminal), Government of NCT of Delhi and with the consent of counsel for the parties the present appeal is being heard and disposed of by way of the following order.
2. The present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) read with Order 41 of CPC assails the judgment dated 27.02.2016, passed by the ADJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in 2016:DHC:6002-DB C.S. No.322/13, titled “Darshan Trust and Others vs. Sub-Registrar III” whereby the relief for rectification of the Deed of Trust dated 09.06.1987 was rejected.
3. The appellant Darshan Trust is a Public Charitable Trust stated to be formed in Delhi on 09.06.1987 pursuant to a Deed of Trust of the same day. The said Deed of Trust dated 09.06.1987 is duly registered by Sub-Registrar, New Delhi on 09.06.1987.
4. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the said Deed of Trust is an ‘instrument’ under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable to Delhi and, therefore, the said suit being CS No.322/13, under Section 26(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking rectification of the said Deed of Trust was instituted by the duly authorized representative of the said Trust.
5. It would be relevant at this juncture to consider the provisions of Section 26(1)(a) and 26(2) of the Specific Relief Act here:
6. A plain reading of the above extracted provision reveals that either party to a contract or other instrument in writing may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified on the ground that the instrument does not express the real intention of the parties because of a fraud or a mistake. It is further observed that the court is conferred with the discretion to direct the rectification of the instrument so as to express the real intention of the parties, so far as, this can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and for value.
7. The said CS No.322/13 came to be dismissed by the trial court by way of the impugned order on 27.02.2016 with the following findings:-
8. A plain reading of the above leads to an inescapable conclusion that the trial court opined that the rectification sought on the ground of mistake of the author of the Trust was not sustainable, as it did not reveal the real intention of the author of the Trust.
9. Mr. Meet Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant makes a solitary submission. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that without assailing the findings, as aforestated, arrived at in the impugned order, the Trustees have wide powers, as is evident from Clauses 6,14,15 and 16 of the said Deed of Trust dated 09.06.1987.
10. It would be relevant at this juncture to extract the relevant clauses of the said Deed of Trust dated 09.06.1987, which are reproduced as under:-
11. It is the submission of Mr. Meet Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that although the institution of the said suit may have been an exercise in futility, the requisite powers are available to the Trustees, in terms of the aforesaid clauses, to carry out necessary amendments, for the purposes of the Trust.
12. In view of the foregoing, it is axiomatic that the only relief that the appellant seeks in the present proceedings is an observation that the impugned order dated 27.02.2016 may not come in the way of the Trustees, making necessary amendments in the said Deed of Trust dated 09.06.1987 in consonance with its clauses and stated objectives.
13. A perusal of the clauses relied upon by the appellant amply demonstrate that the said Deed of Trust dated 09.06.1987 vests the Trustees with wide powers to carry out its purposes and make necessary amendments to achieve its stated objectives.
14. In view of the above, whilst confirming the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2016, I dispose of the present appeal with a direction that in the event the appellant seeks to amend the clauses of the Deed of Trust dated 09.06.1987, strictly in consonance with the powers provided in its clauses, the same would not prejudice their entitlement or stand in the way of their being able so to do.
15. With the above direction, the appeal is disposed of.
16. Needless to state, I am grateful for the assistance rendered to this Court by Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal), Government of NCT of Delhi and Mr. Rajpal, Sub-Registrar – III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, in the present appeal.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J AUGUST 24, 2016 dn