Back
1920 Supreme(SC) 66
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD DUNEDIN, LORD PHILLIMORE, MR. AMEER ALI, AND SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS.
RAJA ANAND RAO - Appellant
Versus
RAMDAS DADURAM - Respondents
On Appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces.
Decided On : Nov. 12. 1920.
Solicitor for appellant: Edward Dalgado.
A trust for a Hindu idol is prima facie a public charitable trust. This presumption is not rebutted by hereditary management or private appropriation of surplus income. Additionally, representative suits for the public benefit regarding such trusts do not abate upon the death of the trustee.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 - Section 539 - Public Trust - Hindu Shrine - Presumption of public character - A trust for a Hindu idol and temple is to be regarded prima facie as created for public charitable purposes. This presumption is not rebutted by circumstances where the management has remained in the hands of the founder's family, no public body has supervised the trust, accounts have not been rendered, or surplus income has been appropriated for the private purposes of the trustee and their family. (Paras 1, 2)
(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 - Section 539 - Sanction for suit - Scope of sanction - Where sanction is granted to institute a suit under the section, such permission cannot be read narrowly to be confined merely to one specific prayer, such as the appointment of new trustees, but extends to the broader objectives of the suit. (Paras 4, 5)
(C) Abatement of Suit - Representative capacity - A suit instituted to remedy abuses in a public trust and to frame a scheme of management does not abate upon the death of the trustee, as such a suit is not prosecuted by individuals for their own private interests but as representatives of the general public. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A suit was instituted to remove a trustee of a religious shrine and appoint new trustees due to mismanagement, following the procurement of statutory sanction. The shrine, founded by a remote ancestor, had been maintained by public revenues and offerings for centuries, although management remained hereditary and surplus funds were used privately. During the proceedings, the original trustee died. The lower courts determined the shrine was a public trust but recognized the hereditary right of management, conditionally safeguarding the successor's right to manage upon reaching adulthood, provided there was no personal mismanagement.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the concurrent findings of fact that the shrine was a public trust. It further held that the statutory sanction was validly granted and that the suit did not abate upon the death of the trustee since it was a representative action for the public benefit.
Issues: Whether the statutory sanction was limited only to the appointment of new trustees; whether the suit abated upon the death of the original trustee; and whether the shrine was a public trust or private property.
Ratio Decidendi: A trust for a Hindu idol is presumed to be public unless rebutted; hereditary management and private use of surplus income do not necessarily rebut this presumption. Furthermore, representative suits for the benefit of the general public regarding public trusts do not abate upon the death of the defendant trustee.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
trusts
-
charitable trusts
- public trusts
- religious endowments
- trustee removal and appointment
-
charitable trusts
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
- sanctions for suits
- abatement of suits
-
civil procedure
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (April 29, 1916) varying the decree of the Additional District Judge of Buldana.
The suit was instituted against Raja Baji Rao, the deceased father of the present appellant, with sanction granted under s. 539 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, to remove him from the management of the properties of a Hindu shrine, and for the appointment of a new trustee. The facts material to this report appear from the judgment of their Lordships.
The learned Judicial Commissioners in the course of their judgment said " The first question is whether the sansthan is a public trust. Of this we have no doubt whatever. It is a view well established that a trust for a Hindu idol and temple is to be regarded in India as prima facie created for public
17 Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 12 ( 1920- 1921)
Raja Anand Rao V. Ramdas Daduram 118
charitable purposes. This presumption has not been rebutted by any evidence given in this case. On the contrary the learned District Judge has set out a chain of evidence going to show that the temple or shrine now in dispute, though founded by a remote ancestor of the family of which the appellant claims to be the chief representative at the present time, has been treated for centuries as a public institution, and has been maintained and enriched as such by grants from successive local governments, made from public revenues and by votive offerings laid at the feet of the idol by worshippers of the deity. We do not think that the evidence showing the institution to be a public trust is in any degree rebutted by the circumstances that the management of it has remained in the hands or subject to the control of the founder and his family, that no public body has ever been appointed to supervise the trust, that the successive managers of the trust have never rendered accounts to any one, that they have never admitted accountability to any one, and that the surplus income has been appropriated for centuries to the private purposes of the trustee and his family. .... We do not lose sight of the class of institution where a founder applies his own property to the creation of a pagoda or any other religious or charitable foundation, and we recognize the fact that the mere giving of permission to the public to resort to such an institution and make use of it to gain religious merit or obtain charity will not make it a public endowment or control the wishes and pleasure of the founder as to its continuance or disposal. But that is not the position here." They said, however, that the same evidence that led to the conclusion that the institution was a public trust established that the right of management was vested in the successive rajas by usage, and that the lower Court had no power in the suit to prevent the devolution of the trust in Baji Raos successor. With regard to the contention that the suit abated upon Baji Raos death they said " We think that the lower Court had no justification for treating a prayer to remove Raja Baji Rao from office as being equally a prayer for the removal of his successor to that office. But the further prayer that the Court should frame a scheme so as to remedy the existing abuses, invoking the exercise of its control by the Court over a public trust, was one which survived the death of the trustee for the time being, and was rightly granted against his legal representative.
1920. Nov. 9. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellant.
The respondents did not appear.
Nov. 12. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD DUNEDIN. In this case there was a sansthan known as the Sansthan of Sri Balaji at Peth Deolgaon in a taluk of the Buldana District. The rajas of the family, who are at present represented by the appellant Raja Anand Rao, were the hereditary keepers of this shrine. Certain mismanagement had taken place in the lifetime of the father of the present raja, and a suit was then instituted by certain
