1. Dispute regarding whether properties in a relinquishment deed are public trust properties and the receiver's obligation to render accounts under the M.P. Public Trust Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 170
1999(2) Supreme 49
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Salimbhai Mukhtar Jaferbhai Chimthanawala -Appellants
versus
Amiruddin S/o Hasan Noorani & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1710 of 1995
With
I.A. No. 4
Civil Appeal No. 1711/95
Contempt Petition No. 6/97
Decided on 10-2-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : S.V. Deshpande, G.D. Sule, Pramit Saxena, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Z.A. Haq, Rajeev B. Masodkar, K.L. Taneja, (Anis Ahmed Khan and Ejaz Maqbool,) Advocates, (NP).
Important Points
The court held that when a judicial determination that certain properties are public trust properties has become final through appeals and the Supreme Court's dismissal of SLPs, the appointed Receiver is legally obligated to render accounts for those properties.
Subject
Trusts and Estates - Public Trusts
Act Referred
Headnote
M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951-Trust properties-Dispute in respect of properties-Receiver appointed to protect properties during pendency of suit-Charity Commissioners list of properties and Trust deed properties-Trust deed properties included list of properties prepared by Charity Commissioner-Receiver’s refusal to render account on properties covered by Charity Commissioner’s list-Plea that Courts order did not cover that properties-High Court upholding plea of receiver-Not sustainable-Order contrary to directions of Supreme Court-Question whether properties in question are trust properties stood concluded by decision of Addl. District Judge wherein it held properties to be trust property-Order appointing receiver clear to include properties in question-High Court not justified in holding that properties in question not covered by order appointing receiver-Receiver liable to render accounts of all properties including properties in question. (Paras 6 to 10)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondent argues the suit's scope was limited to the original trust deed and excluded properties mentioned in a subsequent relinquishment deed. (Para 7 )
3. The court observed that determining the administration of accretions is essential to establish the creation of a public trust and that prior judicial findings were final. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
4. Judicial findings regarding the status of trust properties confirmed by a High Court and the Supreme Court are final and binding. (Para 6 , 9 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; District Judge's order requiring the receiver to render accounts for the specified properties restored. (Para 10 )
6. Does the scope of a suit to determine the existence of a public trust include subsequently acquired properties or accretions?
Yes, if the plaintiff alleges that subsequently acquired properties were treated and administered as public trust properties, such findings are necessary to decide whether a public trust was created. (Para 8 )
7. What is the legal effect of a finding on trust properties that has been confirmed by a High Court and where the SLP has been dismissed by the Supreme Court?
Such a finding becomes final and concluded, and it is not open for the parties to contend otherwise in subsequent proceedings. (Para 6 , 9 )
8. When is a receiver obligated to render accounts for specific properties in a trust dispute?
A receiver is obligated to render accounts for properties identified as trust properties by the court, particularly when the appointment order refers to specific paragraphs or exhibits defining those properties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Judgment
Shah, J.-This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated December 19, 1994 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 497 of 1993 by the Nagpur Bench of High Court of Bombay. By the impugned order, the Court allowed the Revision Application and set aside the order dated 2.4.93 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 575 of 1992 whereby the respondent was required to render accounts in respect of the property referred to in document marked as Exhibit 249.
2. Admittedly, the case has a chequered history. It is the contention of the appellant that on 7.10.1953, a member of the Atba-E-Malak, father of the appellant filed an application before the Registrar under the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for entering the trust in the register as a public trust. That application was rejected. Finally, a special civil suit No. 143 of 1967 was filed on 26th September, 1967 as provided under Section 8 of the Act for setting aside the findings that the trust was not a public trust. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff had no locus standi. An appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1987 was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur and it was held that the Trust was a public trust. Against that judgment and decree, Second Appeal No. 132 of 1992 was filed before the High Court.
3. In the meantime, the Deputy Charity Commissioner had taken in his register the list of properties of the public trust as per Exhibit 249, the relinquishment deed as public trust properties. As the entry was registered, Respondent filed Contempt Petition No. 178 of 1990 in Civil Appeal No. 498 of 1964 before this Court wherein it was contended that Deputy Charity Commissioner has flouted the directions issued by this Court by Order dated 22nd August, 1966 in Civil Appeal No. 498 of 1964. By Order dated 12.2.91, the Court rejected the said contempt application but for protecting the properties Shri Amiruddin Hassan Noorani Malak (Respondent No. 1) was appointed as Receiver. The Court further directed as under:-
“Since the litigation in respect of the said property is pending in the District Court, it is essential that during its pendency the properties which are stated to belong to the public trust should not be frittered away. With that objective in mind, we had suggested to the parties to evolve a workable formula which would ensure till the disposal of the appeal in the District Court. There was some controversy regarding the subject matter of the suit. Fortunately, the trial Court has summed up its conclusions in paragraph 30 of the judgment wherein reference has been made to certain properties which, in the opinion of the trial Court, constituted the subject matter of dispute. We do not express any opinion in this behalf as the District Court is siezed of the controversy, but for the limited purpose of identifying the properties which will be governed by this order, we have referred to paragraph 30 of the Trial Court’s judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners has very frankly stated that the petitioners will not alienate the properties referred to in paragraph 30 of the trial Court order. He has also consented to act as the Receiver of those properties during the pendency of the appeal in the District Court and render accounts to the District Court every three months. By consent we appoint Shri Amiruddin Hasan Noorani Malak as the Receiver of the properties referred to in paragraph 30 of the trial Court judgment. He will render accounts to the District Court every three months and if any direction is necessary hereafter in regard to the management and administration of the said properties, he will approach the District Judge and seek appropriate orders.” (Emphasis added)
4. Thereafter, by order dated 2nd April, 1993, third Additional District Judge, Nagpur directed respondent No. 1, Amiruddin s/o Hasan Nooran
