1. Suit for possession of public trust property based on claim of appointment as Mathadhipati — Dispute over validity of prior nominations and installations. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 395
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Virupakshayya Shankarayya, Appellant
Versus
Neelakanta Shivacharya Pattadadevaru, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1769 of 1975
Decided on 21-3-1995.
Advocates:
ANU MOHIA, J.VAD, RANJIT SINGH BRAR, S.B.VAD, S.S.JAVALI, Usha Reddy
ANU MOHIA, J.VAD, RANJIT SINGH BRAR, S.B.VAD, S.S.JAVALI, Usha Reddy
Important Points
Suits for recovery of possession of public trust property are governed by Section 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, requiring the Charity Commissioner's consent. Additionally, prior final determinations by high-powered bodies on the validity of nominations should be upheld and not re-examined.
Subject
Civil Law - Public Trust
Act Referred
Headnote
JUDGMENT OF PRIVY COUNCIL DID NOT BIND THE PLAINTIFF ON PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA
- but it was definitely a relevant circumstance to be taken note of, as held in the case of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether recovery of possession from a person not holding property adversely to a public trust is barred by Section 50 read with Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Section 50(ii) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act applies to recovery of possession from any person, regardless of whether they hold the property adversely to the trust. (Para 6 )
4. A suit for recovery of possession of public trust property without the consent of the Charity Commissioner is barred under Section 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Suit for possession dismissed. (Para 12 )
6. Does Section 50(ii) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act apply only to recovery of possession from persons holding property adversely to the public trust?
No. The court held that the expression recovery of possession from any person is inclusive and applies to any person, including those who do not claim adversely to the public trust. (Para 6 )
7. What is the evidentiary value of a prior determination by a high-powered body if the current plaintiff was not a party to those proceedings?
Although the principle of res judicata may not apply if the plaintiff was not a party, such a determination is a relevant circumstance under Section 42 of the Evidence Act and should not be re-examined. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. What are the legal risks of recharacterizing a suit for possession as a suit for declaration with consequential relief?
Recharacterizing a suit for possession as one for declaration may render the suit barred by the law of limitation if the declaration sought relates to events occurring beyond the prescribed limitation period. (Para 3 , 7 )
JUDGMENT
HANSARIA, J. :—The respondent-plaintiff has placed himself within two horns of a bull and it is not possible for him to avoid strike by one or the other. And the bull is no ordinary one, as it has the backing and the blessings of no less powerful a body that Privy Council of Jamkhandi State, within whose territorial jurisdiction the suit property was situate, for the recovery of which the respondent made his claim by filing the present suit on 4-2-1954. It is a pity that despite the case of the appellant-defendant having received support from the Privy Council, he came to lose on the same point, to start with, at the hand of Civil Judge. The High Court, which ultimately upheld the view of the Civil Judge, should not have allowed this piquant situation to prevail.
2. The broad facts of the case at hand consist in filing of the present suit by respondent No. 1 in 1954, seeking possession of the suit property, as validly appointed Padadayya (Mathadhipati) of the math at Jamkhandi. The plaintiff claimed this property on the assertion that he had been duly installed as Padadayya on 30-1-1944, as a successor to Virupakshayya I, who had died as early as 1903. According to him, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had not been duly installed as Padadayyas; so also, one Shivalingayya, who according to defendant No. 1 had been installed as Padadayya in 1935 and had in turn nominated him as Padadayya in 1943. There is no dispute at all between the parties that if Shivalingayya had been validly nominated and installed as Padadayya, the plaintiff cannot succeed. And it is precisely this aspect of the case which had come to be decided in favour of Shivalingayya by the Privy Council in an earlier litigation began by one Andanayya in 1934, to which, of course, the present plaintiff was not a party, but, according to him, it was the aforesaid Andanayya who had installed him as Padadayya on 30-1-1944.
3. Now, if the present suit has to be regarded as one for possession of suit property simpliciter, as is the prayer in the plaint, it would be hit by Section 50 read with 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (the Act). To save this blow by the bull, Shri Wad, appearing for the respondent No. 1, first urged that the suit was really not for possession simpliciter but was for declaration of the status of the plaintiff as Padadayya and prayer for possession may be treated as consequential relief. But, if the present be taken as a suit for declaration, then it was hopelessly barred, because the declaration sought is that the plaintiff had become Padadayya after Virupakshayya I had died in 1903. As the suit was filed in 1954 it was apparently much beyond the time. Faced with this situation, Shri Wads effort was to convince us that the suit is not hit by Sections 50 and 51 of the Act.
4. Let it be seen whether this contention can be accepted. Section 50 of the Act deals with suits relating with public trusts. The relevant part of this section reads as under:
"In any case-
(i) xxx xxx xxx
(ii) where a declaration is necessary that that a particular property is a property belonging to a public trust or where a direction is required to recover the possession of such property or the property or proceeds thereof from any person including a person holding adversely to the public trust,
(iii) xxx xxx xxx
The Charity Commissioner or two or more persons having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner as provided in Section 51 may institute a suit......... to obtain a decree for any of the following reliefs:
(a) an order for the recovery of the possession of such property or proceeds thereof,
xxx xxx xxx
Provided that no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in this section shall be instituted in respect of any public trust except in conformity with a provision thereof.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis ours)
Section 51 deals with giving of consent by the Charity Commissioner for the institution of suit.
5. Shri Wad contends that clause (ii) applies only when recover
