Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
M. Hidayatullah, C. J. and G. P. Bhutt, J.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Appellant
Versus
MOTHER SUPERIOR CONVENT SCHOOL - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 203 Of 1956
Decided On : 09/30/1957
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1951 - CHURCHES - RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS - TRUSTS - DEFINITION - INTERPRETATION - LOCUS STANDI OF STATE GOVERNMENT - ARTICLES 25 AND 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION - CANON LAW - RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AS PUBLIC TRUSTS - EXISTENCE OF TRUST AS SINE QUA NON - RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS NOT ADMINISTERING TRUST PROPERTY - NOT PUBLIC TRUSTS - REGISTRAR'S ORDER UPHOLD.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Madhya Pradesh filed two petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the Registrar of Public Trusts, Sagar, who had held that certain churches and religious institutions were not public trusts and therefore not subject to registration under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The State contended that the definition of 'public trust' in the Act was wide enough to include churches and religious institutions, and that the Registrar's order was erroneous.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the State Government did not have the locus standi to file the petitions, as the Act did not confer any right on the State Government to impugn the Registrar's order. The Court further held that the definition of 'public trust' in the Act was not wide enough to include churches and religious institutions which did not administer any trust property. The Court also held that the Registrar's order was correct, as there was no evidence to show that the churches and religious institutions in question were public trusts.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government had the locus standi to file the petitions. 2. Whether the definition of 'public trust' in the Act was wide enough to include churches and religious institutions. 3. Whether the Registrar's order was correct.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the State Government did not have the locus standi to file the petitions, as the Act did not confer any right on the State Government to impugn the Registrar's order. The Court relied on the fact that the Act only conferred a right of suit on the working trustee or a person having interest in a public trust, and that the State Government could not be described as a party aggrieved by the Registrar's order. 2. The Court held that the definition of 'public trust' in the Act was not wide enough to include churches and religious institutions which did not administer any trust property. The Court relied on the fact that the definition of 'public trust' in the Act was limited to trusts for a public, religious or charitable purpose, and that the existence of a trust was a sine qua non of the application of the Act. The Court also relied on the fact that the Act only conferred a right of suit on the working trustee or a person having interest in a public trust, and that churches and religious institutions which did not administer any trust property could not be described as working trustees or persons having interest in a public trust. 3. The Court held that the Registrar's order was correct, as there was no evidence to show that the churches and religious institutions in question were public trusts. The Court relied on the fact that the Registrar had conducted an inquiry and had found that there was no evidence to show that the churches and religious institutions in question were public trusts.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions with costs.
( 1 ) THE order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition no. 216 of 1956.
( 2 ) THESE two petitions have been made under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Miscellaneous Petition No. 203 of 1956 is directed against the Mother Superior Convent School through Mother agnes, Mall Road, Sagar, District Sagar while Miscellaneous Petition No. 216 of 1956 is directed against Roman Catholic Church, Sagar, Roman Catholic Church, bina, Roman Catholic Church and Orphanage. Shyampura, and Rev. C. Dubbleman, Bishop House, Queen's Road, Jabalpur. In both the petitions the registrar of Public Trusts, Sagar, has been joined.
( 3 ) AFTER the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, these answering respondents were invited by the Registrar of Public Trusts to get the institutions under their control registered under the Act. The institutions represented to the Registrar that they were not affected by the provisions of the act, that they were not public trusts, and that they were governed in the case of the answering respondents in Miscellaneous Petition No. 216 of 1956 by the canon law and in the case of the answering respondent in Miscellaneous Petition No. 203 of 1956 by a band of pious ladies who have pooled their energies and resources to further the cause of education and whose association is entirely voluntary and not subject to a trust.
( 4 ) IT appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Sagar, addressed a letter to these various institutions on 2-2-1955 inviting them to furnish particulars required by section 4 of the Act and to get themselves registered. On behalf of the answering respondents in Miscellaneous Petition No. 216 of 1956 the matter was taken up by the Prefecture Apostolic and in the case of Miscellaneous Petition No. 203 of 1956 by the Mother Superior of the Convent. Both the Prefecture Apostolic and the Mother Superior set up pleas which are very similar in character, and the only difference in the written statements was as to the nature of the management of the properties under their control. The prefecture Apostolic said that the property belonged to him because the Prefecture was registered under the Companies Act and the property was administered in accordance with canon law, while the Mother Superior contended that the property belonged to the band of pious ladies who had united together for a particular purpose. Both contended that the property was not impressed with any trust, much less a trust of a public character, and that there were no trustees or beneficiaries as such. They therefore claimed that the Act did not concern them, and section thereof was not applicable to them.
( 5 ) THE Deputy Commissioner acting as the Registrar of Public Trusts held the prima facie view, as appears from his letter dated 24-2-1955 that these persons came within the reach of the definition contained in Section 2 (4), of the Act. Later, after hearing the parties he ruled that neither the institutions nor the prefecture Apostolic and the Mother Superior came within the definitions of 'public trust' or 'working trustee'. He, therefore, ordered that the proceedings commenced against the answering respondents be filed.
( 6 ) IN the two petitions before us the State Government has impugned the order of the Registrar and asked that it be quashed and has further asked that directions be issued to the Registrar of Public Trusts to commence proceedings for the registration of these alleged trusts.
( 7 ) THE petitions were argued together along with three other cases which we have decided today. In view of the fact that some of the questions were common it was found convenient to hear them together. Later on, however, we were able to separate the other three cases from these two, because as stated in the orders which we have passed in those cases, they were to be decided on very narrow issues. We announced in the Court that in our opinion
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
