RAJGOPAL RAGHUNATHDAS SOMANI vs RAMCHANDRA HAJARIMAL JHAVAR

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1967 Supreme(Bom) 126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(S.P. Kotval C. J. and B. D. Bal J.)
RAJGOPAL RAGHUNATHDAS SOMANI - Appellant
Versus

RAMCHANDRA HAJARIMAL JHAVAR - Respondent
Advocates appeared
In F. A. No. 573 of 1963:-
For appellant- V.N. Venkat Vardachari, V.B. Rege and V.G. Madbhavi
For respondents - U.R. Lalit
For Charity Commissioner - V.H. Gumaste, Govt. Pleader
In L. P. As. Nos. 54 and 89 of 1964:-
For appellants Nos. 2 to 5 - U.R. Lalit
For respondents - V. N. Venkat Vardachari, V.B. Rege and V.G. Madbhavi
For respondents Nos. 1 (i) and (ii) in L. P. A. 89/64:
For Charity Commissioner- V.H. Gumaste, Govt. Pleader
In M. O. A. No. 51 of 1964:-
For petitioners- R.V. Mehta and V.G. Madbhavi
For opponents- U.R. Lalit
In O. R. A. No. 1902 of 1964:
For petitioners- U.R. Lalit

Headnote:
PUBLIC TRUST - Suit by de facto trustees - Maintainability - Bombay Public Trusts Act (XXIX of 1950), Ss. 2(10), 2(18), 19(iv), 50 - Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908), S. 92.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, claiming to be de facto trustees of a public temple, filed a suit for possession of the immovable and movable properties of the trust and for damages against the defendants, who were alleged to have illegally taken possession of the trust properties. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were not de jure trustees and, therefore, could not file the suit. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit, holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to file the suit as trustees and that under the Bombay Public Trusts Act they had a right to file it, although they were merely de facto trustees.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the plaintiffs, even though they were found to be de facto trustees, were in the circumstances of the case entitled to bring the present suit to recover the properties of the Shri Laxminaryan Bhagwan Mandir from the hands of the defendants who have no right, title or interest thereto.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs, as de facto trustees, had the right to file the suit under the Bombay Public Trusts Act? 2. Whether the suit was barred by the provisions of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the plaintiffs, as de facto trustees, had the right to file the suit under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Court relied on the definition of "trustee" in section 2(18) of the Act, which includes "a manager", and the definition of "manager" in section 2(8), which includes "any person (other than a trustee) who for the time being either alone or in association with some other person or persons administers the trust property of any public trust". The Court held that the plaintiffs, who had been found to have been associated with the temple properties for a long time, were trustees within the meaning of the Act and, therefore, had the right to file the suit. 2. The High Court held that the suit was not barred by the provisions of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Court held that section 50 was not intended to bar every other suit which a trustee could undoubtedly bring as the legal owner of the property unless the conditions of section 50 are fulfilled. The Court held that the section was intended to confer upon two or more persons interested in trust property, not necessarily the trustee, the right to move to protect the trust property in the event of the trustees failing to do so.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court.

JUDGMENT

KOTVAL C. J.- The judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 54 and 89 of 1964, Application No. 1379 of 1964, Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 51 of 1964 and Civil Revision Application No. 1902 of 1964. All these matters relate to a public temple known as Shri Laxminarayan Bhagwan Mandir, which is a public trust. The origin and history of this trust and its properties is not very clear from the record of the proceedings before us and appears to have been lost in antiquity, but such facts as we have been able to ascertain and which are relevant for the purposes of the matters before us are briefly as follows:

2. The site on which the temple stands in Sholapur town was purchased by one Ramnarain Kashinath Singh on August 5, 1890. The temple was then built on it and the idol of God Laxminarayan installed. On January 29, 1912, an Utsava was arranged for worship of the idol and at that time the person who arranged it was the priest Rangachari Ramanujachari. The temple followed the Ramanuja Sampradaya and in that persuasion it appears that there are two sects, the Tingal sect and the Badgal sect. Shri Rangachari belonged to the Tingal sect. Thereafter the history of this temple is somewhat obscure, but it appears that one Ganeshram Somani was its manager. Ganeshram Somani died in 1930 and was succeeded by Raghunathdas his son. Raghunathdas died in 1947 and was succeeded by Narsinghdas. Till this date it appears that there were really no disputes and that Narsinghdas Somani was a man of the confidence of the entire Sampradaya.

3. On August 14, 1950, however, there came into force the Bombay Public Trusts Act (Act XXIX of 1950), and that Act required that all public trusts must be registered by the trustees of the public trusts (vide section 18). Accordingly, three applications for registration came to be filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and they were Application No.3 /2485 of 1952 presented by Narsinghdas Somani, No.3 /3601 of 1952 presented by Sukhdev Raghunath Singi and Vithaldas Badridas Bhattad who were the plaintiffs in the suit out of which Appeal No. 573 of 1963 arises. A third application was also filed, though it was not separately numbered. The latter application was by one Motilal Ramnarayan. By that application Motilal claimed that the temple and its properties were a private trust of himself and his family members and that neither Narsinghdas Somani nor the plaintiffs in the suit had any right thereto.

4. For the purposes of the proceedings before us however it is not disputed by any of the parties that Shri Laxminarayan Bhagwan Mandir at Sholapur is a public trust. The point of dispute between the parties is as to who should be its proper trustees. In the application filed by Narsinghdas Somani (No. 3/2485 of 1952) he had originally shown a certain number of trustees, but by a further application he had admitted that there were 16 persons as trustees. That application signed by Narsinghdas Somani is at Exh. 128. When the matter came before the Assistant Charity Commissioner for the purposes of registration of the public trust other questions were raised. The Assistant Charity Commissioner held that the temple and its properties were undoubtedly a public trust. There was also a dispute raised before him as to the mode of worship adopted at the temple, but the view which the Assistant Charity Commissioner took was that that was a question which the contending parties could have settled in a civil Court. As to who should be the trustees of this public trust, the Assistant Charity Commissioner negatived the contention raised on behalf of Motilal Ramnarayan that he should be the sole trustee because it was a private trust. The entire claim made by Motilal Ramanarayan was negatived and it was held that the temple was a public temple and Motilal had no right to be a trustee thereof. The Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed thirteen persons as trustees al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis