Back
2006 Supreme(SC) 391
2006(5) Supreme 292
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) Through LRs. — Appellant
versus
Board of MGMT. S.S.J.S. Peeth & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7351 of 2001
Decided on 25-4-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R. Srivastava, Sr. Advocate, E.R. Kumar, P.H. Parekh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Chinmoy Khaladkar, S.K. Nandy, S.S. Shinde, Mukti Choudhary Advocate for V.N. Raghupathy, Ms. Bina Madhavan (NP), M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co. (NP) Advocates.
Headnote:Bombay Public Trust Act — Section 47 — Appointment to the post and seat of Jagadguru Shankaracharya/Sole Trustee of respondent-Trust — In the matter relating to appointment of trustee in relation to Karveer Peeth, Charity Commissioner appointed Second Respondent as sole-trustee — Appeal against the order was dismissed — Appeal — Question whether in terms of Scheme for Management and Administration of Public Trust Shri Swami Jagadguru Shankaracharya Peeth, respondent No. 2 could have been appointed as a sole trustee — Scheme of Trust was framed in 1963 and High Court did not appear to have addressed itself as regards import of clause 5 of Trust Deed — Charity Commissioner and appellate Courts should have made all endeavours to give effect to desire of founding trustees — Clause 5 of the Scheme was relevant for purpose of determining question as regards appointment of sole trustee — Matter needed to be considered a fresh by High Court.
Held : It may or may not be that both the Peeths were branches of the single entity but the question arising herein would have to be considered as to who could be appointed as to the sole trustee of the Karveer Peeth. For the said purpose, we may notice Clause 5 of the Trust Deed which is as under:
“5. The presiding swami Shri Narasimha Krishna Bharati Guru Vidya Shankar Barati Swami Jagadguru Shri Shankaracharya Peeth, Karveer is and shall be the sole trustee of the said trust subject to the decision of the court in pending matters in which case the person decided by the court as a trust shall be the trustee.”(Para 17)
The question as to whether both the Peeths are branches of a common entity may also have to be determined having regard to Clause 5 of the Scheme of Trust framed in the year 1963. We, however, refrain ourselves from going into the said question and in particular the history thereof, as we are of the opinion that the High Court did not address itself as regards the import of Clause 5 of the Trust Deed.(Para 18)
The question as regards appointment of a sole trustee is a matter of great importance having regard to the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Charity Commissioner and consequently the appellate courts should have made all endeavours to give effect to the desire of the founding trustee, if the said provision is applicable. It is in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the heirs and legal representative of original applicant may be permitted to step into his shoes. We, however, do not intend to put our final seal in this regard and the said question may be raised before the High Court.(Para 19)
We would, however, assume that the two Peeths were separately registered but, in terms of the trust deed, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that Clause 5 of the Scheme was relevant for the purpose of determination of the question as regards the appointment of the sole trustee. The said question was of great relevance, even if it be held that the two Peeths were registered separately and, thus, were two separate entities in the eyes of law. It has not been disputed that the said judgment of the Karnataka High Court formed part of the record before the courts below. Its relevance for the purpose of interpreting Clause 5 of the Scheme cannot be disputed. Whether the said Clause fits in with the Scheme, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent, is also required to be determined on the basis of the materials on record.(Para 20)
We, therefore, are of the opinion that the matter should be directed to be considered afresh by the Division Bench of the High Court. We direct accordingly. (Para 21)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J. — The Appellant herein is a Senior Professor and Dean of the Poddar Government Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital in Mumbai. He was also the Dean of Faculty of Ayurved in the University of Bombay.
2. The dispute involved in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th April, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in L.P.A. Stamp No. 11607 of 2000, centers round the appointment to the post and seat of Jagadguru Shankaracharya/Sole Trustee of the Respondent-Trust.
3. The Appellant contends that he as a disciple of Jagadguru Shankaracharya believes that the spiritual head of well-known Math should be appointed according to traditions, customs and usages recognised by law and he should be a great scholar of Veda, Vedangas and Indian Philosophy. He should have also been initiated into sannyas by a Guru.
4. One Sankeshwar Peeth was established by Jagadguru Shankaracharya. The said Peeth is situated in the District of Belgaum in the State of Karnataka. Another trust known as Karveer Peeth was established in the District of Kolhapur in the State of Maharashtra.
5. Whereas the Karveer Peeth is registered in terms of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the Sankeshwar Peeth is registered separately. One Erande Swami is said to have been nominated by his Guru to succeed him as a sole trustee in respect of the said Sankeshwar Peeth. It is, however, contended that he expressed his inability to act as Shankaracharya. The Appellant contends that both the Sankeshwar Peeth and Karveer Peeth are branches of a single entity known as Sankeshwar - Karveer Peeth. The said contention is denied and disputed by the Respondent.
6. It is, however, not in dispute that the matter relating to appointment of a trustee in relation to Karveer Peeth came to be considered by the Charity Commissioner in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. A proposal was made for appointing Shri Ramchandra Narhar Kulkarni the Second Respondent herein as a Sankarcharya of the said Peeth; objections whereto were filed. The Appellant herein was also one of the objectors. By an order dated 11.11.1982, the Charity Commissioner appointed the Second Respondent as sole-trustee of the Karveer Peeth in purported exercise of its power under Section 47 of the Bombay Public Trust Act with the condition that he should take sannyas before he enters upon the charge of the sole-trustee of the Karveer Peeth stating :
“So far as the point that the sole-trustee must be a sannyasi, there is no dispute about it at all. It is a pre-requisition that whoever presides over this Peeth he must be sannyasi.”
7. The Charity Commissioner although opined that there could not be any dispute about the fitness and qualification of Shri Erande Swami for being appointed as the sole-trustee, but proceed to observe that mere learning was not enough under the Scheme to be appointed as a sole trustee of the Peeth and his name could not be considered. In fact the name of Shri Kulkarni was reconsidered although he had withdrawn his claim.
8. A First Appeal being First Appeal No. 166 of 1983 was preferred thereagainst by the Appellant, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 20th January, 2000. A Letters Patent appeal was preferred thereagainst by the Appellant which has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 24.4.2000.
9. In this appeal, we are concerned with a short question, viz., as to whether in terms of the Scheme for the Management and Administration of the Public Trust Shri Swami Jagadguru Shankarcharya Peeth, Kolhapur, the Respondent No. 2 could have been appointed as a sole trustee.
10. It is the contention of the Appellant herein that at all material point of time, a litigation was pending in the State of Karnataka culminating in Regular First Appeal No. 143 of 1982 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. The said First Appeal arose out of a judgment and order d
