2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7344

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R.NATARAJ
PRATAP SINGH S/O NARASOJI RAO SHINDE – Appellant
Versus
UDAY SINGH S/O NARASOJI RAO SHINDE – Respondent
MFA/4390/2006

The mode of succession to the office of trustee of a public trust is determined by the founder trustee at the time of registration of the trust. Once the mode of succession is determined, it cannot be changed except by an order of the court.

Headnote:

BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT - [SUCCESSION] - [HEREDITARY] - [ELDEST SON] - [MODE OF SUCCESSION] - [CHANGE REPORT] - [DELAY IN FILING REVISION PETITION] - [CONDONATION OF DELAY] - [PUBLIC TRUST] - [CHARITY COMMISSIONER] - [DISTRICT JUDGE] - [ESTOPPEL] - [ESCHEAT] - [PUBLIC RELIGIOUS WORSHIP] - [DEDICATION] - [INQUIRY] - [PUBLIC DOCUMENTS] - [ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS] - [ORDER XLI RULE 27 OF CPC] - [INORDINATE DELAY] - [AGGRIEVED PARTY] - [RESTORATION OF ORDER] - [ENTRY OF TRUSTEES IN RECORDS] - Where the founder trustee of a public trust initially desired that his eldest son should succeed to the office of Trustee but later gave it up and restricted it to succession by inheritance only, both the sons of the founder trustee had succeeded to the office of Trustee. Therefore, the orders passed by the Charity Commissioner and the District Judge setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, which had accepted the change report and entered the names of both the sons of the founder trustee in the PTR, were set aside. The order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, was restored, and the names of the appellants and the respondents were ordered to be entered in the concerned records as the trustees of the public trust.

Fact of the Case:

An application was filed in 1952 to register a public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Assistant Charity Commissioner conducted an inquiry and registered the Trust in 1953. The founder trustee died in 1974 leaving behind two sons. The eldest son submitted an application to enter his name in the PTR and also mentioned that his younger brother's name should also be entered. The ACC/B accepted the change report and entered the names of both the sons in the PTR. Later, the younger son filed an application for discharging him as a trustee, which was rejected. The elder brother challenged the order of the ACC/B before the Charity Commissioner after a delay of 26 years. The Charity Commissioner allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the ACC/B. The District Judge also dismissed the applications filed by the younger son challenging the order of the Charity Commissioner. The younger son filed appeals before the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the founder trustee had initially desired that his eldest son should succeed to the office of Trustee but later gave it up and restricted it to succession by inheritance only. Therefore, both the sons of the founder trustee had succeeded to the office of Trustee. The orders passed by the Charity Commissioner and the District Judge setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, which had accepted the change report and entered the names of both the sons of the founder trustee in the PTR, were set aside. The order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, was restored, and the names of the appellants and the respondents were ordered to be entered in the concerned records as the trustees of the public trust.

Issues: 1. Whether the founder trustee had initially desired that his eldest son should succeed to the office of Trustee but later gave it up and restricted it to succession by inheritance only?2. Whether both the sons of the founder trustee had succeeded to the office of Trustee?3. Whether the orders passed by the Charity Commissioner and the District Judge setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, which had accepted the change report and entered the names of both the sons of the founder trustee in the PTR, were valid?4. Whether the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, should be restored?5. Whether the names of the appellants and the respondents should be entered in the concerned records as the trustees of the public trust?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The founder trustee had initially desired that his eldest son should succeed to the office of Trustee but later gave it up and restricted it to succession by inheritance only.2. Therefore, both the sons of the founder trustee had succeeded to the office of Trustee.3. The orders passed by the Charity Commissioner and the District Judge setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, which had accepted the change report and entered the names of both the sons of the founder trustee in the PTR, were not valid.4. The order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, should be restored.5. The names of the appellants and the respondents should be entered in the concerned records as the trustees of the public trust.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed. The impugned order dated 10.04.2003 passed by the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum in Revision Petition Nos.15/2000 and 16/2000 as well as the order dated 23.02.2006 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Belgaum in Misc. Application Nos.61/2003 and 62/2003 were set aside. Consequently, the order dated 16.08.1974 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum was restored. The names of the appellants and the respondents were ordered to be entered in the concerned records as the trustees of the public trust.