S. H. SHETH, T. U. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order made by the learned District Judge Navsari by which he has applied the doctrine of cypres to a public trust. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under.

( 2 ) IN Umbergaon in Bulsar District there is a public trust called Karulkar Family Dharmadaya Fund. It has been registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 Sometime in 1900 this fund was created by one Karulkar and certain lands were set apart for the purpose of spending its income for supplying water to the poor during famine and for carrying on other charitable activities as may be decided from time to time by the majority of the adult male members of the Karulkar family. At the time when this application was filed in the District Court there was an accumulated income of about Rs. 53000. 00. The respondent No. 1 Sakharam Laxman Karulkar is the sole trustee of the trust. It appears that the Charity Commissioner on having noticed a large amount of pecuniary income which had remained unspent requested the trustee to discuss the matter with him in order that this accumulated income may be spent for appropriate charitable objects It appears that the trustee in the first instance agreed to do so and further agreed to submit proposals for the utilization of that income but later on he went back upon it and did not take any step in the matter. The Charity Commissioner therefore issued to the trustee notice on 14th September 1962 under sec. 55 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act calling upon him to apply to the District Court within three months from the date of the receipt of the notice for directions to utilize the said amount for appropriate charitable purposes. It appears that advancement of secular education and medical relief in general were regarded as good objects on which the said income could be spent. The trustee failed to apply to the District Court in pursuance of the said notice of the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner therefore made the present application to the District Court at Navsari for obtaining directions for the the utilization of the said amount.

( 3 ) THE learned District Judge after having heard the parties held that the doctrine of cypres can be applied to the present trust for the purpose of utilization of its accumulated income. He therefore directed the Charity Commissioner and the parties to submit draft schemes for the consideration of the Court and for framing the final scheme in the matter.

( 4 ) IT is that order which is challenged by some of the original opponents in this appeal.

( 5 ) MR. Nanavaty appearing for the Charity Commissioner has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal. According to him the appeal is not competent because sub-sec. (2) of sec. 56 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 does not provide for any such appeal to be filed. In order to examine the preliminary contention raised by Mr. Nanavaty it is necessary to turn to sec. 56. Sub-sec. (2) thereof provides as underany decision or order passed by the court under sub-sec. (1) shall be deemed to be a decree of such court and an appeal shall lie therefrom to the High Court. IT is therefore clear that any order which the Court may pass under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 56 has the force of a decree and is appealable to the High Court. Let us therefore see the nature of the order or decision which sub-sec. (1) of sec. 56 contemplates. Sub-sec. (1) provides as follows:-ON such application being made the Court after hearing the parties and making an inquiry shall decide the matter and shall give directions. In giving the directions the Court shall so far as may be expedient practicable desirable necessary or proper in public interest give effect to the original intention of the author of the public trust or the object for which the public trust was created. If the Court is of opinion that the carrying out of such intention or object is not wholly or partially expedie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document