Judgement

Appeal (No. 70 of 1932) from a decree of the High Court (June 12, 1929) affirming a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares (November 30, 1926).

The parties were members of the Radha Swami religion, which was founded in 1861. The suit was instituted by the appellants against the respondents for a declaration, the substantial effect of which was that a so-called Radha Swami Trust was not a legal or valid trust and that, if it was, it was not a " trust created or existing for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature " so as to make Act

XIV. of 1920 applicable thereto.

The facts of the case appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The High Court (Sulaiman and Pullan JJ.) affirmed the c decree of the trial judge, who had dismissed

the suit.

1935. Feb. 8, 11. Upjohn K.C., De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellants, contended upon the

facts of the case that no trust was ever constituted so as to make the Act applicable ; there was no

evidence that any donor intended to create a trust, nor were the objects or beneficiaries defined.

[Reference was made to Vandrawandas v. Parvatibhai (( 1899) L. R. 26 I. A. 71.), Shambhai v.

Govardhan ( 1925 A. I. R. (Sind) 195.) (in which the Indian cases are collected) ; also to James v.

Allen ((1817) 3 Mer. 17.); Dunne v. Byrne ([ 1912] A. C. 407.); Hunter v. Attorney-General

([ 1899] A. C. 309, 318.)

; In re Davidson ([ 1909] 1 Ch. 567.) ; In re Jackson. ([ 1930] 2 Ch. 389.)]

The respondents did not appear.

March 5. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Allahabad

dated June 12, 1929, which affirmed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Benares dated

November 30, 1926.

The litigation relates to a dispute between the plaintiffs and the added defendants on the one hand and

the first three defendants on the other, with regard to certain property mentioned in the schedule to the

plaint. All the parties are followers of the Radha Swami religion and the questions relating to the said

property involve the consideration of the doctrines, tenets and principles of that religion, which are of

vital importance to them and are of great interest to any student of theology.

The suit was brought by the appellants (one of whom, namely, Patel Chota Bhai, has died since the

initiation of the suit), who alleged that they were followers of the true faith of the said religion, against

Jnan Chandra Basak, Anand Sarup and the Radha Swami Satsang Sabha, a

registered body through its secretary, Mr. Nihal Chand, for a declaratory decree to the following

effect "(1.)—(a) That the so-called Radha Swami Trust administering the properties shown in the

schedule marked A is not, in law, a legal and valid trust, nor of the kind or nature alleged by the

defendants, (b) That the said trust, if any, is not a trust created or existing for public purpose of a

charitable or religious nature or one to which the provisions of Act XIV. of 1920 apply, (c) That the

defendant No. 1 or No. 2 or any follower or followers of defendant No. 2 represented by defendant

No. 3, individually or collectively possess no interest in the alleged trust or in the properties

administered by it or in the affairs of the Satsang and its branches attached to the Radha Swami

Central Administrative Council. (2.) To grant such further relief as the Court may deem fit and

proper.”

These defendants were alleged by the plaintiffs to be dissentients from the true faith, and that the

second defendant, Anand Sarup Sahib, had been set up as the " Sant Sat Guru " by these defendants

and other persons acting with them. Subsequently, certain other persons were added as defendants to

the suit, one of whom, namely, Gurmouj Saran alias Moti Ram, afterwards became a plaintiff, and the

added defendants are now respondents 4 to 9.

One of the added defendants, namely, Sahib Madho Prasad, is alleged by the plaintiffs to be the

recognized Sant Sat Guru of the true faith of the