SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1973 Supreme(SC) 410

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.G. PALEKAR AND V.R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.
State of U.P., Appellant
Versus
Bansi dhar and others, respondents.
Civil appeal no. 1844 of 1967, d/- 11-12-1973.

Advocates:
G.N.DIKSHIT, O.P.RANA, R.K.GARG, S.C.AGRAWAL

Headnote:Cypress doctrine — Two conditions to be satisfied - Testamentary and non–testamentary gifts for public charitable purposes

       – See decision in the case of State of U.P. v. Bansi Dhar, AIR 1974 SC 1084 = 1974(1) SCC 416. Firstly that the settlor must, in general, have shown a charitable intention, secondly, it was or had become impossible to carry out the settlor’s intention.

       – Both must be saved by a wider intervention of court, for public interest is best served that way. Neither principle nor precedent bars this broader invocation of the court’s beneficent jurisdiction. but, as held in State of U.P. v. Bansi Dhar, AIR 1974 SC 1084 = 1974(1) SCC 416, there are some limitations on the cypress doctrine. Where the donor has determined with specificity a special object or mode for the course of his benefaction the court cannot innovate and undo but where a general charitable goal is projected and particular objects and modes are indicated the court acting to fulfil the broader benevolence of the donor and to avert the frustration of the good to the community reconstructs, as nearly may be, the charitable intent and makes viable what otherwise may die.

`Judgment

KRISHNA IYER, J.:- A litigation launched by the sons of a frustrated philanthropist, who is no more, has reached the last deck of the Justice edifice as a civil appeal, by special leave, a little over 22 years after its institution. While illustrating the injustice of delayed justice this case more provocatively exposes the damage done by the Administration s dilatory indifference to a clear commitment of an enthusiastic Collector to construct quickly a female hospital out of a donation from a compassionate gentleman in Kannauj on certain conditions which were breached by Government, according to the findings of the courts below. These socially disturbing features will be better appreciated, regardless of the legal result, when the facts are set out, which we now proceed to do.

2. An old, affluent man called Dubey, in a munificent mood, responded to the request of Shri Govind Narain, then Collector of Farrukhabad District, way back in 1945. A promise to donate Rs. 30,000/- was made, on the basis of a matching contribution by Government, for the good cause of a women s hospital in sacred memory of the donor s deceased wife, Gomti Devi. Apprehending the tardy ways of government, this anxious soul insisted on his being put in charge of the construction so that the hospital may come into existence through his diligent hands and in his lifetime, aided of course by government grant and auxiliary voluntary contributions. The activist, Collector accepted these conditions, received the philanthropic cheques, moved swiftly to get the foundation-stone laid ceremonially by the British Indian Governor of the Province, all in 1945. This sentimental stone had the name Gomti Devi inscribed thereon, and the donor, believing the brave words of the Collector about quick acquisition of land, government contribution and making over of the agency for construction to himself, started collecting the necessary bricks for the building. But Shri Govind Narain in the usual course left the District charge and once his back was turned on the District, things got stuck. For the next Collector, Shri Bhagwan Sahai, noticing official stagnation in this matter wrote to the Civil Surgeon in March 1946 - four months after Sir Maurice Hallet had planted with pomp the first stone at the hospital site - that "that proposal has been hanging since long which is certainly not fair to the donor". Shri Sahai tepidly concluded his note thus:

"For the balance of non-recurring expenditure I presume we shall have to apply to Government. If so who will do it? C. S. or I. I am prepared to do so if I have a clear cut scheme with all loose ends tied up."

3. Nothing happened however, and to add insult to injury the District Supply Officer sent a chill into the chest of the expectant donor by proposing to freeze the bricks collected by him for the hospital building and to divert them for the construction of a school, thus showing the lazy unconcern of the officials for the hospital project. Exhibits 18 and 19 betray this neglect of Govind Narain s undertaking on behalf of Government.

4. The old man, Dubey, continued to correspond with the District authorities on the hospital project till he was spirited away by death in July 1947 and his human agency for construction thus became unavailable. No doubt, no post-mortem repentance was manifested in the official quarters even after Independence came to the country and nothing was done for years, suggesting that slow-motion administration, a die-hard heritage has survived British rule in India.

5. The subsequent part of the story discloses dereliction of duty, as it were, for instead of constructing the proposed six-bed hospital expeditiously with the additional sum to be brought into the hotch-potch by Government, what transpired was that the plans were changed, the agency visualised in the original understanding given up, government s matching sum never granted, and even the foundation stone laid by the Governor of the Province












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top