Goswami Shri Vithalnathji Vrajbhushanlalji Maharaj vs Arunabetiji Purshottamlalji Maharaja

Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Civil Application is by one Goswamy Shri Vithalnathji Vrajbhushanlalji Maharaj seeking leave to

appeal seeking leave to appeal against the order of award made by Second Joint District Judge Junagadh on 24-3-1995 on a reference made by

the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad in Land Reference Case No. 85 of 1992.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer being in confused state of mind in determining as to whom the compensation for acquisition of land be

awarded in respect of the property of Vishnav Haveli called Shri Madanmohanlalji-ni Haveli @ Moti Haveli, at Junagadh which is admittedly of a

public trust. Before making reference the Land Acquisition officer tried to seek guidance from Joint Charity Commissioner to determine the

question of person interested to whom compensated to be granted as the property was a trust property. In reference two persons were arrayed as

parties (1) Arunabetiji Purshottamlalji Maharaja and (2) Goswami Kishorchandraji Purushottamlalji. Arunabetiji is the daughter of Shri

Purshottamlalji Maharaja (Purshottamlaji for the present purposes is called as original trustee of the trust in question) and Goswamiji

Kishorchandra claimed himself to be the adopted son of Purshottamlalji adopted to Purshottamlaji by his widow Chandraprabha Bahuji Maharaj.

That reference has been decided by the order under appeal dated 24-3-1998 by agreement between respondent No. 1 and 2 in which Arunabetiji

accepted the claim of Gowswami Kishorechandraji Maharaj as a trustee of the property in question and permitted the amount of compensation to

be paid to him as trustee. In these circumstances, the court directed the amount of compensation to be paid to respondent No. 2 for the purpose

of trust Shri Madanmohanlalji-ni Haveli @ Moti Haveli at Junagadh as trustee. Prior to this, it may be noticed that the amount of compensation

was deposited in the fixed deposit scheme in Dena Bank, Junagadh and Indian Bank, Junagadh under the directions of this Court, the Second Joint

District Judge gave further directions in consonance with the position of respondent No. 2 as trustee, to make a declaration on oath that the

amount of dividend or interest which may be earned as a result of the above said investment would be utilised fully for the objects and purpose of

the trust and respondent No. 2 shall keep proper accounts of the dividend or interest which the trust shall receive and which will be used for the

purpose and objects of the trust. It was also directed that the said opponent No. 2 shall utilise the amount of principal only after taking necessary

permission from the Charity Commissioner whenever so required.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondents. It was urged that the present applicant was not at all a party in proceedings for

determination of compensation which culminated in the award made by the Collector. In reference made u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,

the scope is limited to the dispute referred u/s 30 and determination of applicant''s rights being not referred to it, is beyond the scope of reference

made or that could be made u/s 30 of the Act. Therefore a person like the present applicant stranger to proceedings before the Collector cannot in

any circumstance be heard in the matter referred to court. Consequently he also has no right to maintain this appeal as a person aggrieved or a

person interested against the award made by the Court.

Reliance has been placed in Manjur Ahmed and on his death his heirs and legal representatives, Akhtari Bibi and Others Vs. Rajlakshmi Dassi

and Others, , Basalingappa Gowda v. Nagamma AIR 1969 Mysore 313, Tejdhari and Others Vs. Baul and Others, and Govind Narayan

Loktlikar Vs. Savitribal Roghurira Lotlikar and Others, .

Learned counsel for the applicant - appellant says that a person who claims to be interested in land or compensation or a person entitled to

receive compensation has a right to be heard in the matter right from the beginning and the fact that at the initial stage he was not made party or

could not be made part of the proceedings cannot come in his way for joining at any stage of the proceedings subject to the relevant considerations

but there cannot be absolute non consideration of such request merely because it is a case arising out of a reference u/s 18 or 30 of the Act a

person who is not before the Collector cannot also be considered to be a person required to be heard by the court.

Reliance was placed in Sunder Lal Vs. Paramsukhdas, .

Having carefully considered the rival contentions we are unable to sustain the preliminary objection with such a wide proposition that as a

person, though he may be shown to be interested in land or in compensation, or it may vitally affect his right to receive compensation, he is

precluded from making an application to be impleaded at later stage of the proceedings and the court is precluded from considering it, in

proceedings which are instituted on making of a reference by the Collector under the provisions of the Act whether u/s 18 or u/s 30.

First question which needs be addressed who can be said to be a person interested. The expression `person interested'' in the context of land

acquisition proceedings is of much wide import and is not restricted to person having interest in land. Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 defines

the expression `person interested'' includes all persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition of land under

this Act; and a person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land;

This goes to show that the expression `person interested'' is not confined to a person having interest in land. A person claiming interest in

compensation, irrespective of his interest in land, too for the purposes of proceeding under the Act, is a person interested.

The next question that needs consideration is what are the rights of a `person interested''. Apart from the fact that person interested is required

to be served with notice of notification u/s 4 as well as is to be afforded an opportunity of hearing in support of objections, if any, filed by him u/s

5A of the Act in the matter of determination of compensation payable under the Act. He takes vital place in the determination of compensation and

questions related thereto. After a declaration u/s 6 is made, which is a declaration by appropriate government that the land under declaration is

required for a public purpose and the stage is set for determining the question of interest outstanding to be acquired, which includes determination

of compensation to be paid and questions incidental thereto. That enquiry is relevant for present purpose. After declaration u/s 6 the Collector u/s

8 is required to cause the land to be marked out, if it is not already marked out in response to directions u/s 4. Section 9(1) requires that Collector

shall cause a public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession

of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. Apart from this public notice Collector under

subsection (3) is also required to serve notice to the same effect on the occupier, if any, of such land and on all such persons known or believed to

be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside, or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within

the revenue district in which the land is situate. In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent

to him by registered post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence address of the place. Section 11 prescribes the procedure and the

scope of enquiry to be conducted by the Collector requiring the Collector to dwell upon the following questions:

(i) the true area of the land;

(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and lastly and more importantly relevant for the present purpose;

(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose

claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him.

It may be noticed that Collector has not only to act and decide the interest of those persons who are before him by filing claim to compensation

or appeared before him, in pursuance of notices i.e. sent u/s 9(1) or 9(3) but he has to consider the case of those persons also whom he believes

or about whom he has information that they are persons interested in the land even if they have not appeared before him. That signifies that interest

known to the Collector or even if it is not known but he believes that such interest is there he is bound to consider the compensation to be paid for

such interest to the person interested in land irrespective of his being person before the Collector. Such person, in our opinion, notwithstanding

being not present before the Collector, cannot be denied hearing at a later stage merely because he was not represented before the Collector. In

other words such interest are to be determined, if known to the Collector even if believed by him to exist, even without their representation. After

the award is made u/s 11, the stage is set for instituting proceedings by person dissatisfied with the award, before the Civil Court, though he is a

person interested but not accepted the award. Such person can require the Collector to make a reference to the Court for determination of the

objection as to (i) the measurement of the land; (ii) the amount of compensation and (iii) the person to whom it is payable or (iv) the apportionment

of compensation among the persons interested. All these questions had direct nexus to identifying the `person interested'' whether as a person

interested in land or interested in compensation only. Once reference of the matter in respect of any one or more of the four objections referred to

above is made to the Civil Court u/s 18 by dint of Section 54 of the Act, the CPC applies to all proceedings before the Court. That includes

power of the court to implead appropriate party at any stage of proceedings in accordance with law. It is also pertinent to notice that once

reference reaches to the civil court the C.P.C. applies including provisions relating to Order I Rule 10. The principle which governs the question of

adding party in a civil proceeding can broadly be stated that the applicant must be directly and legally interested in the answers to the question

involved in the case. A person can be said to be a person legally interested in the answers ofthe question raised before the court. Only if he can say

that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights.

That was the test which has been applied in Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Owners Ltd. 1956(1) AER 1 273 in connection with R.S.C.O. 16

Rule 11 which is similar to Order I Rule 10 of CPC and has been applied by courts in India also.

Section 20 of the Act requires the Court, upon receiving statement of case from Collector about the matter referred to it, is required to cause a

notice specifying the date on which the court would proceed to determine the objection and directing their appearance before the Court on that

day, namely, (i) the applicant, (ii) all persons interested in the objection, except such if any of them as have consented without protest to receive

payment of the compensation awarded and (iii) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the

Collector. It is to be noticed here that the duty of the court is not only to issue notice to the parties before the Collector and to the applicant at

whose instance reference has been made but it also includes notice to all persons interested in the objections. The scope of all persons interested in

the objection is not confined to parties before the Collector or to those who have approached the Collector in the matter of determination of

compensation. It may be noticed that keeping in view the definition of `person interested'' under the Act and that the subject matter that can be

referred to Collector not only include the objections as to measurement of land but also the questions as to whom the compensation is to be paid

and the apportionment of the compensation amongst all persons interested. Therefore any person who falls in the community of `person interested''

within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act acquires an interest in such questions to be determined in the matter apart from the applicant.

Obviously, the notices could be given only to those persons who are known to have, or believed to have interest in the land or compensation, at

the time of issuance of notice. It is left to other person interested to claim, to approach the court under the provisions of C.P.C. to be impleaded as

party. It is thereafter for the court to determine the question whether he can be said to be a person who, in the context of subject matter of the

reference, be treated to be a person interested in the objections or not. What is important to know is the subject matter of reference. A person, if

his interest in subject matter is known to exist, or even believed to exist, is entitled to notice as a matter of right, such person, if he does not receive

notice for want of sufficient information with the Collector or Court and orders affecting his interests are made in his absence, can certainly be said

to be a person who is legally interested in the outcome of the decision in the issues and which will affect him legally. Such person cannot be kept

out of proceedings when he comes with requisite information, which, had it been already with the Collector or court, would have made it obligatory

upon the Collector or Court to issue notices u/s 9(3) or Section 20 respectively.

The statute no where restricts the subject matter of disputes referred to only between parties before the Collector. It may be noticed that while

a reference u/s 18 is made on an application being made by a person who has objection to the making of the award on any of the questions

noticed above, Section 30 enables the Collector to refer, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of compensation or any part thereof or as to

the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, for the decision of the court. This dispute which a Collector is empowered to refer to

the decision of the Court has direct nexus to determine the question of apportionment of compensation which is determined u/s 11 or deciding the

question about the status of the person to receive the compensation so determined. A person who claims right to receive the compensation

whether as a person interested directly to receive compensation or as a person entitled to receive compensation as a guardian of a minor or as a

trustee entitled to manage the trust, claiming legal ownership for the benefit of beneficiaries, or as a person on whom the intent of original claimant

has devolved under any law or as a creditor who has right to attach the compensation and satisfy his claim against the person interested in whose

favour the award is made and amount is likely to be paid or all persons who qualify themselves to fall within the purview of expression `person

interested'' under the Act. No separate procedure for proceedings in connection with reference u/s 30 has been provided for in the Act. It is,

therefore, reasonable to assume that same procedure applies to the court, as is provided for u/s 20 or 21 of the Act. Such procedure, as noticed

above requires notices to all persons interested in the subject matter of objection or disputes referred. Confines of reference is subject matter or

question referred and not the issues arising between the parties before the Collector.

With these provisions, we have no doubt in our minds that subject matter of reference is confined to the matters referred to it but is not

inhibited by its determination within the parties who are before the collector and does reach the person who otherwise show on existing interest in

such subject matter directly. CPC empowers a court in any proceedings pending before it to join any person as party in such proceeding,

depending upon the prima facie existence of his interest in the issue before it, if it considers such person as a necessary or proper party. If it is

found to be a totally stranger or his claim is de hors the determination required to be done by the court he is not required to be part of the

proceedings but if he is otherwise shown to have an existing interest in the subject matter, we are of the opinion and there is no provision which

prohibits the courts jurisdiction to entertain and allow such application merely on the ground that he was not before the Collector.

In this connection it will be appropriate to invite attention to the decision of the Supreme court in Sunder Lal Vs. Paramsukhdas, . It was a

case in which the respondent before the apex court Paramsukhdas has required the court of Civil Judge Akola to be impleaded a part in a

reference pending u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Court. He was a person who was a creditor of the person who was claiming

interest in the land in respect of which compensation was to be determined. He was not before the land acquisition officer for the purpose of

determining compensation payable in respect of the land. In a way he was not claiming any interest in measurement of land or the apportionment of

the compensation amongst various interests, nor a person to whom compensation was payable but he was interested in the quantum of

compensation to be released so that his decree against the claimant be satisfied through execution by attaching the same. The learned Civil Judge

declined to implead him as party on the very same ground on which contention has been raised before us viz that it would enlarge the scope of

reference beyond the parties before the Collector. Paramsukhdas considered to be a `person interested'' under Land Acquisition Act and

proceedings arising thereof. The order of the Civil Judge declining to implead Paramsukhdas was up set by the High Court by holding that the

applicant was not claiming any interest in the lands themselves but was only claiming an interest in the compensation for the land, which had been

deposited in the court for payment to the person concerned, (debtor of the applicant) and as such was a person interested, as defined in Section

3(b) of the Act, and he would, therefore be entitled to claim that he should be allowed to join as a party and heard in the matter of determining on

quantum of compensation. Before the Supreme Court it was contended that an attaching creditor is not interested in the amount of compensation

as compensation but his interest is only to get mooneyes belonging to the judgment debtor in enforcement of his rights. The Supreme Court said:

Under Section 18 any person interested can claim a reference. A person claiming an interest in compensation would also be entitled to claim a

reference. After a reference is made the Court is enjoined u/s 20 to determine the objections, and serve, among others, all persons interested in the

objection. A person claiming an interest in compensation would, it seems to us, be a person interested in the objection if the objection is to be

amount of compensation or the apportionment of compensation, and if his claim is likely to be affected by the decision on the objection Section 21

restricts the scope of enquiry, to a consideration of the interests of the persons affected by the objection. But it does not follow from Section 21

that there is any restriction on the grounds which can be raised by a person affected by the objection to protect his interests. The restriction that is

laid is not to consider the interests of a person who is not affected by the objection. Section 29 deals with apportionment of compensation, if there

is agreement, and Section 30 enables the Collector to refer disputes as to apportionment to the Court. From the above discussion it follows that a

person claiming an interest in compensation is entitled to be heard under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. The provisions ofthe Act, including

Sections 20 and 21, do not prescribe that his claim to an interest in compensation should be as compensation, as urged by Mr. Desai. This is really

a contradictory statement. For, a fortiori, he has no interest in land, and compensation is given for interest in land. He can never claim

compensation qua compensation for what he claims is an interest in the compensation to be awarded. This is not to say that a person claiming an

interest in compensation may not claim that the compensation awarded for the acquired land is low, if it affects his interests.

In coming to this conclusion the court reiterated the view expressed by it earlier per majority in Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. State of Bihar, .

The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act is that all disputes about the quantum of compensation must be decided by resort to the procedure

prescribed by the Act. it is also intended that disputes about the rights of owners to compensation being ancillary to the principal dispute should be

decided by the Court to which power is entrusted. Jurisdiction of the court in this behalf is not restricted to cases of apportionment, but extends to

adjudication of disputes as to the person who are entitled to receive compensation, and there is nothing in Section 30 which excludes a reference

to the Court of a dispute raised by a person on whom the title of the owner of land has, since the award, devolved.

The Court also quoted with approval the following observation of Mookerjee, J in Gola Khan v. Bholanath Marick (1910) 12 Cal LJ 545:

The petitioner was entitled to be added as a party not under Rule 10 but on the ground that he was a person interested in the subject matter of the

litigation and that no order ought to have been made for its disposal without any opportunity afforded to him to establish his claim.

We are of the opinion that the conclusion to which we have reached is in consonance with the ratio laid down in Sunderlal''s case (supra) and

the earlier decisions approved therein that all disputes about the quantum of compensation and ancillary questions as to apportionment, and dispute

as to whom such compensation is payable are to be decided by the court to which powers is entrusted under the Act and in doing so, where an

applicant establishes that he is a person interested in the subject matter of litigation namely the question which has been referred to the court for its

decision, ought to be impleaded as a party and could not be excluded from affording an opportunity of hearing merely on the ground that he was

not party before the Collector for receiving the amount of compensation.

We have been unable to persuade ourselves to fall in line with those cases in which the courts have taken the view that persons who have not

lodged their claim, whether to the amount of compensation or apportionment or right to receive such compensation before the Collector, on a

reference being made, cannot be considered to be a person interested and cannot be impleaded on the ground because it results in enhancing the

scope of enquiry by the referral court as the same are in conflict with the view expressed by the Supreme Court. We are of the view that Section

18 or Section 30 does not confine the jurisdiction of the Civil court to decide the question as to the apportionment of quantum determined by the

court or person to whom such amount is to be paid only amongst persons who are before the Collector so as to exclude a person from being

impleaded as party even if it is able to show that he has subsisting interest in the compensation and he falls within the purview of person interested

within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act. We therefore overrule the objection. Wherever such application is made it has to be decided on its

own facts by considering whether the subsisting interest in the subject matter to be decided by the court is fairly made by the applicant seeking to

be made party or not.

The present applicant appellant claims himself to be the nearest heir of late Purshottamlaji the original trustee and denies existence and validity

of adoption claim of respondent No. 2 who is the natural born son of Shri Dwarkeshlalji, with which parentage he has been described in the title of

this application and appeal. For challenging adoption he has already resorted to his remedy by way of filing a civil suit and presently Regular First

Appeal No. 941 of 1992 arising out of the proceedings in the Civil Suit No. 138 of 1988 is pending before this Court. In the said appeal filed by

the present applicant along with other co-plaintiffs, the sole respondent is Goswami Kishorechandraji Dwarkeshlal Maharaj. In the said appeal

effective order which can be read as under is operative `after taking into consideration the order of modification dated 3rd August 1992 as the

opponent (Kishorechadnraji Purshottamji) is restrained from transferring, alienating or dealing or otherwise disposing of the properties of the trust

during the pendency and final hearing of first appeal''.

A report has also been made before Charity Commissioner about registering the name of trustee, which too is pending.

The present applicant claim that he is a person interested in the land acquired and is aggrieved with the order by which the amount of

compensation has been ordered to be paid to respondent Kishorechandraji as trustee of the trust with further directions about utilisation of the

interest and corpus of the amount, which affects his interest adversely. This claim is founded on the premise that office of the trustee of the trust in

question is hereditary. On the death of last holder the office devolves on his male line of descent and in the absence of a male descendant, to his

nearest male agnate relative. Applicant denies the fact and validity of adoption of Kishorechandra to Late Purshottamlal and claims himself to be

nearest male agnate relative to lay claim to the office of the trustee.

It is not in dispute that the present applicants never raised any objection as to the land acquisition proceedings or filed any claim to

compensation before the Land Acquisition Officer. However, it is clear from the order of learned Jt. District Judge under challenge that a reference

was made u/s. 30 by the Land Acquisition Officer because he was unable to decide as to persons to whom the amount of compensation

determined by him was payable, the same to be decided by the court. Thus the precise question which was referred to the Court was to determine

the person to whom amount of compensation, whole or in part, was payable. The present applicant along with other claimants as heirs of

Chadraprabhabahuji, the last trustee made an application to be impleaded as party to reference u/s 30 and laid claim as persons entitled to

receiving the compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. This application Exh. 58 was rejected by the Court below on 7th

July 1997. Against the said order the applicants preferred a revision before this court which also according to learned counsel for the applicant, has

since been rejected for want of removing office objection at defective stage. It is also not in dispute that the property under acquisition was a trust

property and the amount of compensation to whomsoever is to be paid to be paid as the trustee and not in individual capacity. Claim to the amount

by the present applicants is also in their capacity as a trustee that is to say to acquire the power to manage the trust funds is the issue between the

parties. The issue between the parties is not to how much the quantum of compensation or right of the trust to receive the compensation, but to

whom the money be handed over as trustee of the Haveli. It is also not in dispute that in the present case respondent No. 2 is at present in the

control of the management of the trust properties and defacto discharging the duties of the trust. In these circumstances, this also cannot be

contested and argued that any amount which is recoverable by the trust must go to the person in charge of the management of the trust property.

That is also apparent from the interim order passed by this court in the first appeal filed by the present applicant. Who is the trustee of public trust,

otherwise exclusively falls within the domain of Charity Commissioner to determine and if in the process parties'' civil rights are to be determined,

the same is to be decided by the civil court. For this purpose they already had taken recourse to civil remedies and any findings or directions issued

by the reference court must in the very nature of things be subordinate to any orders that may be passed in the substantive litigation pending

between the parties as to their inter se rights. In the facts and circumstances of the case, until applicants right is established in appropriate

proceedings as trustee, of the property, he cannot be said to have any present right to receive compensation. Whether the applicant is a trustee or

in management of trust in question also does not require to be decided in the present proceedings in view of admitted position as to existing facts

and orders made in pending proceedings. The applicant''s only interest at present can be said is that if he succeeds in the pending proceedings, he

may be entitled to be placed in possession and management of trust properties movable and immovable. In such circumstances, when the only

question to be decided in reference is to whom the compensation is payable, the applicant cannot be said to be a person interested so as to be

made party to proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, His remedy, if any, is to seek appropriate directions from the Court in pending appeal or

from Charity Commissioner in respect of management of trust properties to safeguard the interest of trust.

As in respect of management of trust properties there already exists an interim order passed by this Court which permits the present incharge

of trust properties to deal with it, with restriction on their right to transfer, alienate or use the properties. However no further directions are needed

by any of the parties to safe guard the interest of the trust so to see that the trust income is applied only to the objects of the trust the only form

which parties to that litigating open is to make appropriate applications and seek directions from the court where the litigation is pending or from

the Charity Commissioner who exercises the original authority. The Land Acquisition Officer or in that matter reference court is not the authority

who decides this issue. All the other questions the applicant wants to raise in this application fall beyond the scope of these proceedings.

Even on merits of appeal, in the very nature of things as they stand, direction to pay compensation payable to Trust could be made only to

person in charge of management of trust and no one else. There being no dispute as to who is presently in charge of trust, there cannot be any

hesitation in reaching the conclusion, that only person in charge of Trust are entitled to receive compensation unless otherwise injuncted by a Court

of competent jurisdiction. Hence the court in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 30 of the Act has rightly ordered to whom the compensation is to be paid

on its finding that property acquired is a trust property and amount has to be paid to any one only as trustee of the trust and not in his individual

capacity and that the compensation be so paid to respondent No. 2.

So far as his objections to that part of the reference which requires of respondent No. 2 to make a declaration that he shall fully utilise the

amount of dividend or interest of the compensation paid to him for the object and purpose of the trust and he shall keep proper accounts of the

dividend or interest which the trust shall receive in our opinion is stating the obvious and cannot give a cause of grievance to any one. Even without

any such declaration when the amount of compensation is directed to be paid to respondent No. 2 as a trustee of the trust in question, these

obligations are inherent into it which as a trustee he must adhere to and to safeguard the compensation amount, learned District Judge has required

of the respondent No. 2 to seek prior permission of the Charity Commissioner before making use of the corpus, any person who lays a claim to

the trust property only as trustee, but who is not presently in management of trust properties and his rights are yet to be determined by appropriate

authority or the civil court, cannot claim to be a person in presenti interested in question to whom the compensation is to be paid, when no other

issue is raised about compensation itself, nor any question as to apportionment is involved, nor can he be treated as person aggrieved. If still he is

dissatisfied with any arrangement and wants further directions, clarifications or guidelines in respect of utilisation of the amount which goes in the

hands of present managers of the trust as stated by us hereinabove, his remedy lies to approach the court where the appeal is pending or to the

Charity Commissioner who otherwise regulates the affairs of the trust and before whom also an application for changing entries in register is alleged

to be pending to seek appropriate directions.

Accordingly this application as well as and the appeal is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.