Back
1924 Supreme(SC) 31
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SHAW, LORD BLANESBURGH, AND SIR JOHN EDGE.
VAIDYANATHA AYYAR - Appellant
Versus
SWAMINATHA AYYAR - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : June 19, 1924.
Solicitor for appellant :Douglas Grant. Solicitor for respondents: H. S. L. Polak.
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Trusts and Charities
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Public Trust - Validity of Endowment - Where a will refers to "the charity" after having specifically identified a particular charitable institution, such a reference is not void for uncertainty and is construed as a gift to that specific institution.
(C) Appointment of Trustees - An appointment of a manager over properties falsely claimed to be private property by the appointor, rather than an appointment as a trustee of existing trust properties, is invalid.
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a declaration that a rest house was a public charity and that the current trustees were improperly appointed and should be removed. The plaintiffs, who were descendants of the founder through female lines, sought the settlement of a management scheme. The defendants contested the plaintiffs' locus standi, claiming they had no interest in the trust, and argued that the institution was private and that the appointment of the trustee was valid.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs' status as descendants of the founder provided sufficient interest under Section 92. It upheld the concurrent findings that the institution was a public trust. It further held that the testamentary gift to "the charity" was specific and valid, and that the appointment of the trustee was invalid as it was based on a false claim of private ownership of trust properties.
Issues: Whether descendants of a founder in female lines have sufficient interest under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sue; whether a testamentary gift to "the charity" is void for uncertainty; and whether an appointment of a manager based on a false claim of ownership constitutes a valid appointment of a trustee.
Ratio Decidendi: The removal of the word "direct" from the statutory requirement of "interest" indicates a broader scope; kinship with the founder is a substantial interest. A gift to "the charity" is valid if the context of the will identifies the specific charity. An appointment is void if the appointor purports to appoint a manager of his own property when the property is actually held in trust.
Result: Consolidated appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
- locus standi
-
civil procedure
-
trusts and charities
-
public charitable trusts
-
administration
- appointment of trustees
-
administration
-
public charitable trusts
-
wills and succession
-
testamentary gifts
- validity of gifts
-
testamentary gifts
Judgement
Consolidated appeal (No. 63 of 1922) from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court (November 13, 1919) affirming with a variation a judgment and two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam.
The suit was brought by the respondents under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, with the consent of the Advocate-General, for a declaration that the respondents were not rightly appointed trustees of a chattiram and that in any case they should be removed from being trustees. They further prayed for a declaration that the chattiram constituted a public charity with properties endowed to it set out in schedules to the plaint.
The facts sufficiently appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Subordinate Judge, upon an issue whether the plaintiffs were so interested as to be entitled under
s. 92 to maintain the suit, held that they were so interested; he was of opinion that the chattiram was a public charity. He held that the appointment of the respondents was invalid, and that certain of the properties only were endowed to the charity under the will of Swaminatha. In the result he directed that a scheme should be framed for the management of the charity, and subsequently made a decree approving the scheme settled.
Upon appeal to the High Court the decrees were affirmed subject to modification. The learned judges (Abdur Rahim and Burn JJ.) in affirming the decision that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit under s. 92 said "It has been ruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Boidyo Gauranga Sahu v. Sudevi Mata (( 1917) I. L. R. 40 M. 612.), that the heirs of the founder have considerable interest in the maintenance of the charity, and the Hindu law gives them the right to nominate trustees in the case of a vacancy, and in the absence of any provision in the deed of endowment for the appointment of trustees. In our opinion therefore the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramachandra Aiyar v. Parameswaran Unni (I. L. R. 42 M. 360.) does not preclude us from holding that the plaintiffs, having regard to the facts proved in the case, have an interest within the meaning of s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code sufficient to enable them to maintain the suit."
It was held further that Suri Ayyar was not competent to appoint trustees under this will, and that in any case that the appointment was invalid as not being made bona fide in the interests of the trust. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was modified so far as it excluded certain properties from the endowment.
1924. May 19. Upjohn K.C. and Abdul Majid for the appellants. The respondents were not " persons interested in the trust" within the meaning of s. 92; their interest was remote and contingent, and not such a substantial interest as entitled them to sue under s. 92 Ramachandra Aiyar v. Parameswaran Unni (I. L. R. 42 M. 360.) and cases there mentioned. The judgment of the High Court was based upon Boidyo Gauranga Sahu v. Sudevi Mata (( 1917) I. L. R. 40 M. 612.), but that case is not consistent with the above-mentioned decision of the Full Bench. There was no evidence that the respondents ever used the chattiram. Further, as regards two-thirds of the income the gift was to charity generally, not to the chattiram; and consequently was too vague to be valid Runchordas Vandrawandas v. Parvatibhai . (( 1899) L. R. 26 I. A. 71.) The appointment of the respondents as trustees was valid, and there was no good ground for their removal.
De Gruyther K.C., Dube and Narasimham for respondent No. 2 were not called upon.
June 19. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR JOHN EDGE. These are consolidated appeals by defendants in a suit, No. 1 of 1916, from two decrees, dated November 13, 1919, of the High Court at Madras, which affirmed with a trifling variation as to some property claimed, a preliminary decree, dated April 15, 1918, and a final decree, dated September 30, 1918, of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam.
The suit relates to
