Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surinder Singh Nijjar, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
Vinodkumar M. Malavia etc. – Appellants
Versus
Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8800-8801 /2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 16575-16576 of 2012)
Decided On : 30-09-2013
(2006) 9 SCC 282; (2005) 10 SCC 760 - Relied upon
(b) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 18(4)(b) - Registration of a trust must be made within three months of formation - No provision for retrospectivity - CNI formed in 1970 - Registered in 1980 with retrospective effect - Not permissible. (Para 15)
(c) Constitution of India - Article 254 - There is no conflict between BPT Act and SR Act - Rather they are in consonance with each other regarding the administration and regulation of public and religious trusts. (Para 15)
(2005) 10 SCC 760 - Relied upon
(d) Constitution of India - Articles 25 and 26 - Appellants insisting that CNI became successor to FDBC on strength of the resolutions as they were entitled to manage their affairs as religious entity - Provisions of Articles 25 and 26 only facilitate better administration, subject to the law of the land i.e. BPTA. (Para 20)
AIR 1954 SC 282; AIR 1954 SC 388 - Distinguished
(e) Estoppel - People participating in passing of resolution for unification of Churches - Later taking stand and claiming that FDBC continues to exist and hold property - Question of estoppel does not arise. (Para 21)
(f) Administration of Justice - Judicial Propriety - Charity Commissioner not bound by CPC or Evidence Act - Nevertheless by and large he follows these - Evidence adduced before Charity Commissioner accepted by Courts below - No infirmity. (Para 23)
(2003) 8 SCC 752 - Referred
(g) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Secti on 22 - Scope - Charity Commissioner has to adjudicate on acceptability or otherwise of change report and other ancillary matters. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Six Church societies including FDCB decided to merge/unify into CNI which was registered as a Trust under the BPT Act.
Some members of the FDCB challenged the vesting of properties of FDCB into CNI on the ground that FDCB was not dissolved legally and hence continued to exist and therefore its properties cannot be vested in CNI.
The Charity Commissioner adjudicated the issue and accepted the change report.
The District Civil Court however allowed the miscellaneous petition holding that merger was a factual position and the FDCB was not dissolved legally as per the statute.
High Court affirmed the finding of the Civil Court.
Finding of the Court:
The claim of the appellants that following unification of FDCB with CNI after the purported resolution resulted in the dissolution of FDCB making CNI its legal successor and controller of its properties, does not hold good and cannot be accepted.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated April 23, 2012 (in First Appeal Nos. 1535 and 1536 of 2009) passed by the High Court of Gujarat, affirming the order dated February 3, 2009 passed by the City Civil Court (in Civil Misc. Application Nos. 470 of 2008 and 630 of 2008). The City Civil Court set aside the order dated May 23, 2008, passed by the Charity Commissioner. The said adjudication was made by the Charity Commissioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Vinod Kumar Mathurseva Malvia & Anr. v. Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti and Ors. [2006 (9) SCC 282] (being Civil Appeal No. 1260 of 2006, arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24198 of 2005, decided on February 24, 2006) in an earlier ancillary dispute wherein this Court directed the Charity Commissioner to adjudicate on all questions pertaining to the merger of trust and other pending disputes as expeditiously as possible. Thus, the Charity Commissioner adjudicated on the objections against Change Report Nos. 44 of 1981 and 665 of 1981.
3. The facts of the case briefly are as follows :
1. The facts of the present case are not much in dispute and the background of the same lies with the facts in the matter adjudicated by this Court in Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & Ors. [2005 (10) SCC 760] (being Civil Appeal No. 9419 of 2003 as decided on May 3, 2005), therefore, the detailed background of the parties and the organizations involved has not been mentioned and only the facts pertinent to the dispute in question are stated.
2. The abovementioned Change Reports were filed by First District Church of the Brethren (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FDCB’) a registered religious society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SR Act’) bearing Registration No. 1202/44 and later registered as public trust in Gujarat bearing No.E- 643/Bharuch, after the enactment of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BPTA’) property of which is vested with its ‘Property Committee’ and the Church of North India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CNI’), Gujarat Diocese. The CNI is a public trust registered by an application accepted on May 12, 1970 with effect of registration being given from 1971 and the trust being formed on November 29, 1970 with Registration No. D-17/Ahmedabad.
3. These Change Reports were filed to give effect to the unification of six churches which included the FDCB, an offshoot of the ‘Brethren Church’ of USA (other Churches being The Council of the Baptist Churches in North India, The Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon, The Methodist Church (British and Australian Conference), The Methodist Church in Southern Asia and The United Church of Northern India) into a single entity, ‘The Church of North India’ (with the Gujarat Chapter being managed by the Church of North India, Gujarat, Diocese).
4. This unification is the result of a process which commenced from 1929. The negotiation meetings commenced from 1955 onwards which had representatives from the uniting churches who discussed every aspect of the emerging entity. A result of which was the Plan of Church Union in 1965 called the 4th Revised Edition in the form of a printed booklet published by the Negotiating Committee and widely circulated and deliberated by the uniting Churches which adopted the same. The plan traced the historic background leading to the creation of the CNI and dealt with all aspects of the same. Part-II of the same pertained to procedural details of the unification. The plan is a result of the negotiations through various meetings convened in the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1961, 1964 and 1970. The Managing Committee of the FDCB being the ‘District Committee’ initially participated in these meetings as an observer, however, from 1956, it joined the negotiation process. It is alleged that Resolution No. 70/08 was passed on February, 17, 1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
