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

2009 Supreme(Bom) 1702

SWATANTER KUMAR, D.D.SINHA, PRASANNA B.VARALE
Shyamabai wd/o Surajkaran Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:J.T. Gilda, A.M. Gordey, Advocates. For the Respondents:B.N. Mohta, S.D. Chopde, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points can be summarized as follows:

  1. Applicability of Trust Laws to Public Trusts:
  2. The Indian Trusts Act, 1882, is applicable primarily to private trusts, and its provisions, including Sections 47 and 48, are not applicable to public trusts. This is supported by the interpretation of the Act's preamble and legislative intent (!) (!) .
  3. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, has specific provisions for public trusts, and the inclusion of societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, within the definition of public trusts does not automatically confer the status of a public trust unless certain registration conditions are met (!) (!) .

  4. Registration and Legal Status of Public Trusts:

  5. A society formed for religious or charitable purposes and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, only becomes a public trust after obtaining a certificate under the relevant rules. Without this certificate, it does not have the status of a public trust (!) (!) .
  6. The second part of the definition of "public trust" in the relevant legislation pertains to societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but this is distinct from the first part, which defines a public trust for regulatory purposes (!) (!) .

  7. Delegation of Trustee Powers:

  8. Trustees are generally required to execute their duties jointly. However, exceptions exist where delegation is permitted, such as when the trust deed allows it, with the approval of co-trustees, or in the regular course of business. The decision to act can sometimes be delegated to one trustee under specific circumstances (!) (!) .

  9. Suit for Recovery and Legal Proceedings:

  10. Proceedings for recovery of property or eviction initiated by a trustee or a trustee’s authorized representative are subject to the applicable laws governing trusts and trusts-related actions. The authority of individual trustees to institute such proceedings depends on the legal framework applicable to the trust, whether private or public (!) (!) .

  11. Legal Interpretation and Legislative Intent:

  12. The interpretation of statutes must align with their language, preamble, and legislative purpose. The Indian Trusts Act’s preamble clearly indicates its scope is limited to private trusts, and courts are not authorized to extend its provisions to public trusts without explicit legislative enactment (!) (!) (!) .
  13. The legislative device of incorporation versus mere reference is crucial; provisions incorporated into a statute become part of that legislation, whereas references do not automatically carry the same legal effect unless explicitly adopted (!) (!) .

  14. Jurisdiction and Court Proceedings:

  15. The legal proceedings involving public trusts, including suits for recovery or eviction, are to be decided based on the specific statutory provisions applicable to the nature of the trust and the manner of its registration. The courts are to interpret the applicable laws without overextending the applicability of laws designed for private trusts (!) (!) .

  16. Supreme Court and High Court Principles:

  17. The courts have consistently held that the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, is applicable only to private trusts, and public trusts are governed by separate legislation, primarily the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. This distinction influences the procedural and substantive legal rights concerning trust management and property (!) (!) .

These points collectively clarify the legal framework governing public and private trusts, emphasizing the importance of proper registration, legislative intent, and the limits of statutory applicability.


Judgment :-

D.D. Sinha, J.

Heard Shri Gilda, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Shri Mohta, learned Counsel for the respondent in Second Appeal No.116/1998, as well as Shri Gordey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chopde, learned Counsel for the respondents in Writ Petition No. 3749/2008.

2) Justice A.B. Chaudhari in view of conflicting decisions of the learned Single Judges of this Court in the writ petitions thought it appropriate to refer the controversy in issue to the larger Bench and, therefore, vide order dated 6.8.2009 passed in Second Appeal No.116/1998 referred the following questions for determination to the Full Bench:

(i) Whether Sections 47 and 48 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 are applicable to a Public Trust and consequently, whether all the Trustees of such Public Trust are required to be joined as party to the suit for eviction of a tenant?

(ii) Whether in the absence of registration of a public trust, in addition, under the Societies Registration Act, the provisions of Societies Act and Section 6 thereof, would apply to such a public trust on the strength of definition of Public Trust under Section 2

(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950?”

S





















































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top