SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1948 Supreme(SC) 29

Privy Council At Bombay
Sir John Beaumont, Lord Macdermott, Justice Lord Uthwatt, JJ.
Gurunatharudhaswami Guru Shidharudhaswami -Appellant
Versus
Bhimappa Gangadharappa Divate and another, Respdts. -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 56 of 1946
Decided On : 26-03-1948

Important Points

Properties acquired through public offerings for a religious institution constitute a public trust. In administering such trusts, the court possesses the jurisdiction to remove an unfit manager, notwithstanding any appointment made by the founder's will.

Subject

Civil Law - Trusts and Charities

Act Referred

Headnote

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 92 - Public Trust - Religious and Charitable Institution - Declaration and Scheme - Suit for declaration that a religious institution was a public trust, for framing a scheme of administration, and for removal of the head of the institution on grounds of unfitness - Properties acquired through offerings and gifts for the purpose of the institution are regarded as accretions to the original foundation and form part of a trust created for charitable or religious purposes (Para 4) - A trust is considered public if the general public is at liberty to visit for worship and receive food (Para 6).

(B) Trust - Personal vs. Public - A gift of property made for the spiritual good of the donor, without evidence of use for the institution's benefit, is considered a personal gift and not part of the public trust (Para 7).

(C) Removal of Trustee/Manager - In settling a scheme for the administration of a charitable trust, the court has the jurisdiction to remove a person from the position of head or manager if found unfit, regardless of whether the appointment was made by the will of the founder (Para 8).

Facts of the case:
A suit was filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking a declaration that a religious institution was a public trust, the framing of an administration scheme, and the removal of the current head for being unfit. The institution had acquired substantial property through public offerings and gifts. The head claimed ownership of the properties via a will executed by the previous head.

Findings of Court:
The court found that most properties were dedicated to the public trust as they were acquired through offerings and gifts for the institution's purposes. However, one specific piece of land conveyed for the spiritual good of the donor was held to be personal property. The court also accepted the finding that the appellant was unfit to lead the institution.

Issues: Whether the properties used by the institution belonged to the head personally or were subject to a public charitable trust, and whether the court could remove a head appointed by will.

Ratio Decidendi: Properties acquired through public offerings for a religious institution constitute a public trust. The court's power to ensure suitable management of a charitable trust overrides any appointment made by will if the appointee is found unfit.

Result: Decree modified to exclude one piece of land; appeal dismissed.

Advocates Appeared:
Cassavetti Coustas and Co., T.L. Wilson and Co., K.R. Bengari, G.M. Chatterjee, Lady, S.C. Isaacs

Sir John Beaumont. -

This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 31 - 8 - 1939, affirming a judgment and decree of the District Judge, Dharwar, dated 5 - 8 - 1937.

[2] The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent and three others under S. 92, Civil P. C., for a declaration that a certain institution known as Shri Sidha Arndha Swami Math was a public trust of a religious or charitable nature, for the framing of a scheme in connection with the institution, and for the removal of the appellant from his position as the head of the institution on the ground that he is unfit to occupy that position, and for consequential relief. The Shri Sidha Arudha Swami Math would be more accurately described as a Temple than as a Math, but it has been referred to as a Math throughout the proceedings, and will in this judgment be called "the Math."

[3] The facts relating the the foundation of the Math and the acquisition of the properties belonging thereto are not in dispute. The appellant at Ex, 194 accepted as correct the statements contained in the first fourteen paragraphs of the deposition of plaintiff 4 which contained a full history of the matter. The contention of the appellant is that the Courts in India have drawn wrong inferences from the facts.

[4] The learned trial Judge discussed in detail and with much care the documentary and oral evidence, particularly In relation to the circumstances in which the various properties used in connection with the Math had been acquired. In appeal the High Court again discussed the evidence in considerable detail, and both Courts reached the conclusions that the institution, whether it be called a Math or a Temple, was founded by the public for a public, charitable and religious purpose, viz., the worship of the Swami during his lifetime and of his Samadhi (tomb) after his death, and for the purpose of the various festivals which bad been, started in connection with the institution, and that the offerings made to the Swami, the properties purchased out of those offerings and those acquired by gifts after 1912 (when the Swami assumed control of the Math), must all be regarded as accretions to the original foundation, and that all the properties in suit form part of a trust created for purposes of a charitable or religious nature. Counsel for the appellant has referred their Lordships to all the relevant evidence and no useful purpose would be served by a further discussion of it in detail. Their Lordships can state shortly and in general terms their reasons for agreeing with the conclusions of the Courts in India.

[5] The Swami came first to Hubli about the year 1877 as a mendicant, possessing no property. In the course of time he began to give discourses on the shastras and claimed to be an incarnation of the God Mahadeo, and as such to be worthy of worship. He collected a large body of disciples and before his death property of very substantial value had been acquired for the purposes of the Math. The Swami himself took no interest in material matters, being concerned mainly with the religious side of the activities of the Math, and it is on the face of it improbable that members of the public would have given property of substantial value to the Swami for his own personal use. The evidence shows that in some cases lands were acquired by panchas at Hubli, in other cases lands or ornaments were given direct to the Swami or on his behalf to to Sbiddappa, the father of the appellant, who had been appointed Mukhtya to the Swami about the year 1920. The buildings on the land used for the purposes of the Math were erected out of offerings made to the Swami. No disputes in connection with the Math seem to have arisen until the year 1924 when the Swami made a will, giving the whole Of his property to the appellant. The property comprised in the will included the movable and immovable properties used or held in connection with the Math and the right of







1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top