SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Kar) 117

Karnataka High Court
Kalikadevi of Shirasangi - Appellant
Versus
Shivasaharanand Sadhu Maharaj - Respondent
Decided On : 03-15-85
C.R.P. : 3412 of 1984

Advocates:
G.D.SHRIGURKAR, J.S.GUNJAL

The decision of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner is final and conclusive, excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in deciding certain issues related to public trusts.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 18, 19, 20, 79, 80 - The court considered the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to refer issues to the Assistant Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It was held that the Civil Court is not competent to decide whether a trust exists and such trust is a public trust or whether particular property is the property of a public trust. The decision of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner is made final and conclusive, excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Therefore, the Trial court was not right in referring the issues to the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

Fact of the Case:

The suit involved a public trust seeking a declaration and possession of a chariot constructed in the name of the trust. The trial court referred certain issues to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, which was contested by the petitioners.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Civil Court is not competent to decide certain issues related to public trusts, as the decision of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner is made final and conclusive, excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.

Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Court was right in referring the issues to the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded in deciding whether a trust exists and such trust is a public trust or whether particular property is the property of a public trust, as the decision of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner is made final and conclusive.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision petition was allowed, and the order referring the issues to the Assistant Charity Commissioner was set aside. The trial Court was directed to stay the suit for a period of two months to allow the plaintiff to make an appropriate application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner to determine the property claimed in the suit.

K. A. SWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred under Section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure, against the Order dated 8th August, 1984, passed by the learned civil Judge, Bailhongal, in O S. No. 38/81, referring issue Nos. 4, 5 and 13 to the Assistant Charity Commissioner, belgaum, for recording this findings on those issues and also staying further proceedings in the suit until the findings are received.

( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that there is no provision in the bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') enabling civil Court to refer the issues to the assistant Charity Commissioner. Therefore, the order under Revision is without jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are plaintiffs. The first plaintiff "sri Kalikadevi of shirsangi" is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Act. Plaintiffs 1a to 1d are the trustees of the first plaintiff-public trust. The suit is for a declaration that the Chariot or the Ratha constructed or got ready by defendant no. 1 and other for and in the name of first plaintiff is the property of public trust They have also sought for possession and custody of the Chariot from defendants 1 and 16 and further restraining defendants 1 to 13 and 16 from holding Rathothsava or taking out any procession of the Chariot in the name of Sri kalamma alias Sri Kalikadevi deity of shirsangi either on the Gouri Hunnime day or on any other day. The defendants are contesting the suit. Several issues are framed in the suit. Out of them, issue Nos. 4, 5 and 13 are referred to the assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, by the order under Revision, for recording this findings on those issues.

( 4 ) THE question for consideration is whether the trial Court is right in referring the issues in question to the assistant Charity Commissioner.

( 5 ) SECTION 18 of the Act provides for regisieration of public trusts. It makes incumbent upon the trustee of a public trust to make an application for registration of the public trust. It also provides for the particulars that are required to be furnished in the application. Section 19 of the Act provides for the inquiry for registration. The Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner is required to hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining : (1) Whether a trust exists and whether such trust is a public trust. (2) whether any property is the property of such trust. (3) whether the whole or any substantial portion of the subject-matter of the trust is situate within his jurisdiction, (4) the names and addresses of the trustees and manager of such trust, (5) the mode of succession to the office of the trustee of such trust, (6) the origin, nature and object of such trust, (7) the amount of gross average annual income and expenditure of such trust and, (8) any other particulars as may be prescribed under sub-section (5) of section 18 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act further provides that on completion of the inquiry provided for under Section 19 of the Act, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner shall have to record his findings with the reasons therefore as to the matters mentioned in Section 19 of the act and make an order for payment of the registration fee. Sub-Section (1) of Section 79 of the act provides that any question, whether or not a trust exists and such trust is a public trust or particular property is the property of such trust, shall be decided by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner in appeal as provided by the Act. Subsection (2) there of makes the decision of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner in appeal as the case may be final and conclusive unless it is set aside by the decision of the Court on application or of the High Court in appeal. Section 80 of the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court from deciding the questions which are required to be decided or dealt with by an







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top