2015 Supreme(AP) 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Duvvuri Rama Krishna Rao Trust - Appellant
Vs.
Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department and Ors. - Respondents
A.S. No. 2009 of 1995
Decided On: 29.07.2015

Headnote:

Land Act – Plaintiff trust filed the suit seeking relief of setting aside the order passed on consequently declaring it as private and personal trust, alleging that it trust came into existence on 30.04.1971, on which date expired, by virtue of the registered will executed by him – As per wishes of testator under Ex.A.1 bequeathing all his property, created plaintiff trust with avowed object of gathering and feasting of trustees and friends with families on the anniversary days of the donors father and mother, his own and on his birthday, doing on anniversary day of his father presentation of religious books to deserving pundits on the birthday, adding additional books to the library and to do pilgrimage to for his sake which is to be done by one of trustees – Defendant resisted the claim by filing written statement denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that as per the terms of the Will the beneficiaries are a particular class, namely, deserving students and pundits, opening of donors of library to public even by adding additional books to it, propagation of Vedic culture etc. The fact that uncertain and fluctuating body of persons is a section of public which are defined in a class, amounts to creation of public trust, but not a private trust. It cannot be said that the beneficiaries are only a particular individual and they are a class as such. Therefore, the trust created is only a public trust, but not a private trust, as the beneficiaries described by the testator under Ex.A.1 is quite large section of public which is unascertainable. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner in cannot be set aside and it binds the plaintiff – By any stretch of imagination, it cannot be construed that the provisions of the Act will not applicable to the institution, since the donor mentioned at page 8 of the Will-Ex.A.1 are charitable in nature – Held, Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the registration was only at the instance of the 2nd defendant-Assistant Commissioner of Endowments when he issued a notice calling upon the trust to get itself registered under Section 38 of the Act 17 was examined before the trial Court, he simply denied everything and pleaded ignorance even applying for registration and registration of the trust under Section 38 of the Act 17 if really any notice was issued by the 2nd defendant calling upon the plaintiff to apply for registration and get the trust registered under Section 38 of the Act 17 of 1966, there must be some evidence on record. But no such notice allegedly issued by defendant is brought on record to accept the contention of the plaintiff. Even otherwise, this contention was not substantiated by adducing any oral evidence by absence of any evidence on record, it is difficult to accept the contention that the registration was only at the instance of defendant – Authorities concerned and allowed to attain finality. Section 40 of Act 17 of 1966 enables the Deputy Commissioner to enquire into and decide the question as if it was a dispute within the meaning of Section 77 of the Act – Here the plaintiff filed to declare the trust as private trust, but the 1st defendant declined the relief on the ground that the trust was established for the public purpose and aggrieved by the said order suit was filed before the District Judge, Rajahmundry, who confirmed the same on the ground that the purpose of establishing trust is only for the public at large and not for the benefit of ascertained group of public. If it is for the benefit of ascertained class or group of persons it can safely be held that it is a private trust. But, here the library was established for an unascertained group of Sanskrit pundits, who are conducting research in Sanskrit, and similarly presentation of books to Sanskrit pundits and students, who are the unascertained group entry into library is not restricted. Therefore, the plaintiff trust is only a public trust and not a private trust – Petitions shall stand dismissed.