Back
1957 Supreme(AP) 67
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Rachakonda Satyanarayana
Versus
Lankapotu Venkatappa Reddy
Civil Revn. Petn. No. 610 of 1954 to revise order of Dist. J., Guntur
Decided On : 25-03-1957
Ch. Sankara Sastry and T. Veerabhadriah, for Petitioner; Y. Rama Reddy, for Respondents.
The court has jurisdiction to decide the question of adverse title in a summary way under Section 5 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, if the person claiming adverse title does not avail of the option to institute a suit for declaration of title and appropriate relief.
Headnote:
CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS TRUSTS ACT, 1920 - SECTION 5(6) - ADVERSE TITLE - JURISDICTION OF COURT - SUMMARY ENQUIRY - EXISTENCE OF TRUST - ADVERSE TITLE SET UP BY PETITIONER - FAILURE TO INSTITUTE SUIT - COURT'S COMPETENCE TO DECIDE DISPUTE - MATERIAL EVIDENCE NOT CONSIDERED - SUMMARY INQUIRY - NO FINAL ADJUDICATION OF TITLE - PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO AGITATE TITLE IN REGULAR SUIT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the lower court to direct him to render an account of the income from trust properties, claiming adverse title to the properties and arguing that the court could not try or determine questions of title under Section 5(6) of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the lower court had jurisdiction to decide the question of adverse title in a summary way since the petitioner did not avail of the option under Section 5(3) to institute a suit for declaration of title and appropriate relief.
Issues: 1. Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to take proceedings under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, considering the repeal of the Act by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951? 2. Whether the lower court could try or determine the question of title between the petitioner and the respondent claiming title adversely to the trust under Section 5(6) of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920? 3. Whether the lower court erred in failing to consider material evidence on the side of the petitioner in determining the existence of the trust?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The repeal of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, by the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, only applied to religious institutions and endowments, not charitable endowments like the one in question. 2. Section 5(6) of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, does not absolutely prohibit the court from trying or determining questions of title, but allows for such determination in certain circumstances, including when the person claiming adverse title does not institute a suit for declaration of title within the prescribed time. 3. The lower court was justified in accepting the will as prima facie sufficient proof of the existence of a trust in respect of the properties, considering that the petitioner's grandfather attested the will and confirmed the trust by his own will.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs, upholding the lower court's order directing the petitioner to render an account of the income from the trust properties.
One of the grounds set forth in the revision petition is that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to take the proceedings, because Act 14 of 1920 ceased to apply, by reason of the repealing provisions of S. 5 (3) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 19 of 1951. At the hearing Sri Ch. Sankara Sastry, the learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that he is unable to argue this position, as the repeal was only in respect of religious institutions and endowments and not in respect of charitable endowments like that in question here.
The only ground on which he assails the lower Courts jurisdiction is based on the fact that the petitioner claims the properties in dispute adversely to the alleged trust, as being his family properties which Lingamurthy was incompetent to dispose of by a will and as having been enjoyed by him and by his forefathers with absolute rights for over the statutory period. It is urged that this question of title raised by him could not be tried or determined by the lower Court in view of sub-s. (6) of S. 5 of Act 14 of 1920 and therefore the lower Court was competent to pass the order on the respondents application under S. 3 of the Act.
2. There is clearly no substance in this contention. Sub-section (6) of S. 5 reads :
Save as provided in this section, the Court shall not try or determine any question of title between the petitioner and any person claiming title adversely to the trust.
It is manifest from the opening clause that the inhibition against trying or determining questions of title is not absolute but is subject to the other provisions of S. 5. These provisions are contained in sub-ss. (3) and (4). Sub-section (3) says that if any person appears at the hearing of the petition under S. 3 and either denies the existence of the trust or denies that the trust is one to which the Act applies and undertakes to institute within three months a suit for declaration to that effect and for any other appropriate relief, the Court shall order a stay of the proceedings and, if such suit is instituted shall continue the stay until the suit is finally decided.
Sub-section (4) provides that if such undertaking is not given, or if after the expiry of three months such a suit is not instituted, the Court shall itself decide the question. A claim of title adversely to the trust is in effect a denial of the existence of the trust. The Court dealing with a petition properly filed under S. 3 is charged with the duty of itself deciding that dispute, if the person setting up adverse title does not avail of sub-s. (3) and have recourse to a separate suit.
The petitioner did not institute such a suit and therefore the lower Court was competent to decide in a summary way whether the adverse title set up by die petitioner negatived the existence of the trust. This view of the effect of sub-s. (6) is supported by the decision in Haidarali v. Gulam Mohiuddin, AIR 1934 Bom 343 (A).
3. Sri Ch. Sankara Sastry next contends that : the findings of the learned District Judge are vitiated by his failure to take into consideration material evidence on the side of the petitioner. In his will Ex. A-l, Lingamurthy stated that the endowed properties were his self-acquisition. He directed his son Yagnanarayana to be the "dharmakarta and to get repairs effected to the fresh-water-t
