Judgement

Appeal (No. 62 of 1936) from a decree of the High Court (May 31, 1934) reversing a decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Kangra, at Dharamsala (December 19, 1927).

One Chaudri Mallah Singh, of Kangra, who had for some years maintained a primary school in his village, Indaura, for the education of youths of his community, desired to extend the institution, and in 1919 a committee of sixteen leading Rajputs was selected for the management of the school, and rules and regulations and a memorandum of association were drawn up and filed and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the sixteen selected Rajputs being named as the Managing Committee (the present respondents). In 1925, desiring still further to extend the institution into a college, Chaudri Mallah Singh executed, on November 25, 1925, a deed of trust in favour of the present appellants, Sunder Singh-Mallah Singh Sanatan Dharam High School Trust, whose attempt to enter on their duties caused dissension between them and the respondent managing committee. It was thereupon agreed between the parties to leave the school and its properties in the possession of Chaudri Mallah Singh pending the result of litigation between the appellants and the respondents. A suit was in due course instituted by the respondent managing committee, through two of its members, against the appellants, through ten trustees, claiming a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff committee had the right to manage the school and to manage the property for the purposes of the school; and an injunction against interference by the appellants. The property in question con sisted of (1.) Rs.95,000 on fixed deposit in the Punjab National Bank, Lahore; (2.) War Bonds of the value of Rs.5000, also deposited with the same bank; (3.) Bonds, mortgage deeds and promissory notes, of the value of Rs. 100,000; and (4.) Lands and school buildings, etc., mentioned in a list attached to the plaint. The main questions in this appeal were whether in the circumstances a suit for a declaration lay, and whether the plaintiff managing committee was a duly registered body under the Act of 1860.

The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, but on appeal the High Court (Coldstream and Hilton JJ.) reversed his decision and granted a decree in the plaintiff committees favour, declaring that the properties in question were held in trust for the school, and that the committee had the right to manage the school and to manage the property for the purpose of the school.

The facts, the relevant statutory provisions, and the views of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1937- Nov. 16, 18, 19. Abdul Majid and Mrs. M. J. Clark for the appellants. There are three points (a) Whether the registration of the memorandum of association was valid— that is the main point; (b) assuming that it was validly registered, whether the property vested in the plaintiff committee; and (c) whether according to Punjab customary law, or Hindu or Mahomedan law, the plaintiff committee had any right to challenge what the founder did? All the properties in question are contained in the trust deed. With regard to the validity of the registration of the memorandum of association there are, as required by the Act of 1860, seven signatures to it, but the sixth, Kharak Singh, did not in fact sign it as required by the Act he had to sign personally, and admittedly he did not do so. The next point is that the properties were never transferred to the committee. The founder never transferred anything to the committee as such; no property existed in their names, and no property vested in them at the time the body was registered. There is no evidence that any property was legally conveyed to the society. [Reference was made to s. 5 of the Indian Trusts Act (II. of 1882); Rattigans Digest of Customary Law for the Punjab, 7th ed., ch. 6, ss. 95 and 96—on the essentials of wakf, where it is said