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

1971 Supreme(Ori) 48

Orissa High Court
B.K.PATRA,S.ACHARYA,R.N.MISRA
Prasanna Kumar Praharaj - Appellant
Versus
Jagannath Jew - Respondent
A.H.O. No. 4 of 1964
Decided On : 04/26/1971

Advocates:
R. Mohanty, for Appellants; S. Mohanty, R. K. Pal, B. Pal, A. Mohanty, D. P. Mohapatra and G. B. Patnaik, for Respondents.

A classification of persons or things must have a rational nexus or connection with the object sought to be achieved by the statute in order to pass the test of permissible classification under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

ORISSA HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT - SECTION 73(2) - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION - CLASSIFICATION OF TRUSTEES - RATIONAL NEXUS - ENFORCEMENT OF PECUNIARY OR PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE INSTITUTION - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

The Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (Act 2 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was challenged before the Orissa High Court. The main issue was the validity of Section 73(2) of the Act, which deals with the rights of trustees appointed under the Act to institute suits to enforce the pecuniary or property rights of the institution or the rights of such institution as a beneficiary. The petitioners contended that the provision was ultra vires being hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that Section 73(2) of the Act was ultra vires the Constitution. The Court found that the classification of trustees into two groups, namely, hereditary and non-hereditary, was intelligible and reasonable. However, the Court held that there was no rational nexus or connection between the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The Court observed that the provision conferred a benefit on non-hereditary trustees by exempting them from the restrictions imposed by Section 73(1) of the Act, while hereditary trustees were not entitled to such exemption. The Court held that this discrimination was not justified and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the expression "trustee appointed under the Act" in sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 includes all kinds of trustees, hereditary and non-hereditary, or whether it is confined to non-hereditary trustees? 2. If sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Act is confined only to non-hereditary trustee appointed under the Act, as has been found in ILR (1963) Cut 817 : (AIR 1965 Orissa 76) (Nabaghana Samal v. Bhagawata Gossain,) is it hit by Article 14 of the Constitution? 3. Whether the expression to institute a suit to enforce the pecuniary or property rights of the institution or the rights of such institution as a beneficiary would include only rights arising out of property or would extend to enforcing suits in respect of the property itself : and 4. Whether suits to enforce the pecuniary or property rights of the institution or the rights of such institution as a beneficiary are excluded from the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the classification of trustees into two groups, namely, hereditary and non-hereditary, was intelligible and reasonable. However, the Court held that there was no rational nexus or connection between the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The Court observed that the provision conferred a benefit on non-hereditary trustees by exempting them from the restrictions imposed by Section 73(1) of the Act, while hereditary trustees were not entitled to such exemption. The Court held that this discrimination was not justified and violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Final Decision: The High Court held that Section 73(2) of the Act was ultra vires the Constitution.

Judgement

R. N. MISRA, J. :- This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment in a Second Appeal disposed of by Barman, J., as he then was. When this appeal came before a Division Bench for hearing, the correctness of an earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in ILR (1963) Cut 817 : (AIR 1965 Orissa 76) (Nabaghana Samal v. Bhagawata Gossain,) was doubted and the vires of Section 73 (2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (2 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was questioned.

2. The Division Bench thereupon referred the appeal to be heard by a Full Bench under Rule 2, Chapter V. Part II of the Rules of the Court. It also formulated four points to be determined by the Full Bench. The points referred are the following :-

(1) Whether the expression trustee appointed under the Act in sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 includes all kinds of trustees, hereditary and non-hereditary, or whether it is confined to non-hereditary trustees;

(2) If sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Act is confined only to non-hereditary trustee appointed under the Act, as has been found in ILR (1963) Cut 817 : (AIR 1965 Orissa 76), is it hit by Article 14 of the Constitution?

(3) Whether the expression to institute a suit to enforce the pecuniary or property rights of the institution or the rights of such institution as a beneficiary would include only rights arising out of property or would extend to enforcing suits in respect of the property itself : and

(4) Whether suits to enforce the pecuniary or property rights of the institution or the rights of such institution as a beneficiary are excluded from the scope of sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Act.

We propose to deal first with the points and then with the appeal with reference to its facts.

3. Section 73 of the Act provides : "(1) No suit or other legal proceeding in respect of the administration of a religious institution or in respect of any other matter in dispute for determining or deciding which provision is made in this Act shall be instituted in any Court of law except under, and in conformity with the provisions of this Act.

(2) Nothing contained in this section shall affect the rights of the trustee appointed under the Act of a religious institution to institute a suit to enforce the pecuniary or property rights of the institution or the rights of such institution as a beneficiary."

The word "trustee" has a statutory definition in Section 3 (xvi) and means a person by whatever designation known, in whom the administration of a religious institution and endowment, are vested, and includes any person or body who or which is liable as if such person or body were a trustee. There is also a statutory definition for the term "hereditary trustee" and Section 3 (vi) defines that term as referring to a trustee of a religious institution succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right since the time of the founder or is regulated by customs or is specifically provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of succession is in force. In Sec. 3 (viii) "non-hereditary trustee" has been defined to mean a trustee who is not a hereditary trustee. Thus in the Act is to be found a very wide definition of the term "trustee". By definition only three classes of trustees are hereditary namely, (i) trustees succession to whose office devolves by hereditary right since the time of the founder, (ii) trustees succession to whose office is regulated by custom, and (iii) trustees succession to whose office is specifically provided for by the founder so long as such scheme of succession is in force. The term "non-hereditary trustee" would mean all other trustees who are not hereditary.

4. The Act has maintained through out a clear distinction between the two classes of trustees - hereditary and non-hereditary. Section 27 of the Act provides for appointment of non-hereditary trustees and vests the power in the Assistant Commissione









































































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