The jurisdiction of a court to remove a trustee from a religious endowment is limited to the powers conferred upon it by the relevant statutes. An application for the removal of a trustee must be made in accordance with the provisions of the relevant statutes, and the court must have the jurisdiction to take such action.

Headnote:
RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT - REMOVAL OF TRUSTEE - JURISDICTION - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - C. P. AND BERAR COURTS ACT, 1917 - SECTIONS 17, 26 - RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1863 - SECTION 2 - MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1951 - SECTIONS 26, 27 - JURISDICTION OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE TO REMOVE TRUSTEE - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 14 OF RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT - APPLICATION UNDER SECTIONS 26 AND 27 OF MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT - CONDITIONS PREREQUISITE - WANT OF JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT'S JURISDICTION TO TAKE ACTION - FRESH APPLICATION - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Bhagwan, was the Sarpanch and trustee of a public religious endowment known as Shri Dutt Deosthan, Kalamb. In a civil suit filed in 1949, the plaintiffs prayed for the removal of Bhagwan from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship of the Deosthan. The trial court dismissed the prayer for removal, and the plaintiffs' appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. In 1957, the plaintiffs filed an application before the trial court alleging that Bhagwan had not complied with the directions contained in the preliminary and final decrees passed in the civil suit and that he had mismanaged the trust property. The trial court removed Bhagwan from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to remove Bhagwan from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship. The court found that the application filed by the plaintiffs in 1957 was not made under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, or under Sections 26 and 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, which provide for the removal of trustees. The court also found that the Additional District Judge, who passed the order removing Bhagwan, was not empowered under Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act to take such action.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had the jurisdiction to remove the appellant Bhagwan from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship of the Deosthan. 2. Whether the application filed by the plaintiffs in 1957 was made under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, or under Sections 26 and 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. 3. Whether the Additional District Judge was empowered under Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act to take action to remove Bhagwan.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the trial court to remove Bhagwan was limited to executing the final decree passed in the civil suit. The court could not remove Bhagwan from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship because the judgments of the trial court and the High Court in the civil suit had held that he ought not to be removed. 2. The application filed by the plaintiffs in 1957 was not made under Section 14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, or under Sections 26 and 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The application was made in the ordinary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge in the execution proceedings before him. 3. The Additional District Judge was not empowered under Section 2 of the Religious Endowments Act to take action to remove Bhagwan. The Additional District Judge was not the principal Court of original civil jurisdiction in the district, and he was not empowered by the State Government to take action under the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional District Judge removing Bhagwan from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship. The court directed the parties to bear their own costs throughout.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the First Additional District Judge, Yeot-mal, dated the 26th June 1958, removing the appellant Bhagwan from the trusteeship and sarpanchship of a public religious endowment known as Shri Dutt Deosthan, Kalamb, tahsil and district Yeotmal. The facts preceding the application dated 19-10-1957 upon which the order under appeal came to be passed arc not in dispute. On 3-6-1928 one Kasabai widow of Krishnaji Gore executed a deed of trust. By that deed she dedicated a field, survey No. 39/1, area 10 acres 32 gunthas, of Kasha Kalamb, to the temple of Shri Dutt Dcosthan. By the same deed she appointed five persons including the appellant Bhagwan as trustees. Of the other persons appointed as trustees, one D. B. Sarda is no longer alive. The principal trustee and the Sar-panch was the appellant Bhagwan. One of the trustees, the respondent No. 2 Dattatraya, resigned on 31-1-1932.

2. In 1949 this Dattatraya and one Namdeo Narayan Gore tiled civil suit No. 4-A of 1949 praying inter alia for the removal of the appellant Bhagwan from the trusteeship and Sarpanchship of the Deoslhan and for various other directions. The Other surviving trustees, namely, Laxman Gangaram Deshmukh and Dacla Vithoba Khasala were defendants in that suit. On 7-8-1950 a preliminary decree was passed by the First Additional District Judge, Yeotmal, giving certain directions which are material for the purposes of this appeal but disallowing the prayer for the removal ot the appellant from the trusteeship. Against this decree the appellant Bhagwan moved the then High Court at Nagpur in First Appeal No. 150 of 1950 and by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 28-11-1956 the appeal was dismissed. A cross- appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the suit praying that their prayer for the removal of the appellant Bhagwan had been wrongly disallowed was also dismissed, with the result that the appellant Bhagwan continued as the Sarpanch and trustee of the said Deosthan but was subject to the directions given in She two decrees. In those proceedings in paragraph 17 of the trial Courts judgment dated 7-8-1950 the following directions were given:

"Issue No. 9: I order the defendant No. 1 to associate the other Panchas in the matter of the management of the field and the temple. He will along with the defendants 2 and 3 select two Panchas in order to make the required number of five. This he will do within two months from today. One of the Panchas will be the plaintiff No. 2 if he is willing. The defendant No. 1 shall never arrange the annual dinners in his house and always arrange them in the temples. The defendant No. 1 shall every year from date of suit show the accounts to the Panchas and obtain their signatures in token of consent or obtain their written objections. He shall render to the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 accounts of the management of the field and the temple from 1933 till the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs claim for removal of Panchas is dismissed".

It was this judgment which was confirmed in First Appeal No. 150 of 1950. The present appeal arises out of an application filed by the plaintiffs in that suit on 19-10-1957.

3. By that application the plaintiffs complained that the defendant No. 1 Bhagwan, the appellant before me, had not complied with the directions contained in paragraph 17 quoted above which were subsequently incorporated in a preliminary decree dated 12-8-1950, nor had he carried out the directions of the final decree passed in the suit on 24-11-1950. It remains to be stated that pending First Appeal No. 150 of 1950 before the High Court proceedings were taken in pursuance of the preliminary decree before the trial Court. A commissioner was appoint- ed to take accounts and in pursuance of the commissioners findings a final decree came to be passed on 24-11-1950. By this final decree, the defendant No. 1 Bhagwan was ordered to pay back to the trust Rs. 1000-14-9

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1960 Supreme(Bom) 66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYKotval S.P. J.Appellants: Bhagwan Sitaram KhasaleVs.Respondent: Namdeo Narayan Gore and Anr.Appeal No. 34 of 1958Decided On: 18.08.1960Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.Q. Qazi, Adv.For Respondents/Defendant: R.K. Manohar and U.A. Zinjarde, Advs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Kotval S.P. J.
Appellants: Bhagwan Sitaram Khasale
Vs.
Respondent: Namdeo Narayan Gore and Anr.
Appeal No. 34 of 1958
Decided On: 18.08.1960
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.Q. Qazi, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: R.K. Manohar and U.A. Zinjarde, Advs.