2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7154

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R.NATARAJ
PRATAP SINGH S/O NARASOJI RAO SHINDE SINCE DEAD BY – Appellant
Versus
UDAY SINGH S/O NARASOJI RAO SHINDE – Respondent
MFA/4393/2006

The mode of succession to the office of Trustee in a public trust is determined by the terms of the trust deed and the relevant provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

Headnote:

BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT - [TRUST] - [SUCCESSION] - Where the founder trustee had himself given up the contention that the eldest son is to succeed to the trusteeship and restricted it to "Succession shall be hereditary." - The judgment in Marthanda Varma, relied upon by the respondent No.1(d) is not applicable to the facts of this case. - Therefore, both the sons of the founder trustee had succeeded to the office of Trustee. - It was in that context that U.N.Shinde had himself sought the name of his younger brother to be inserted in the PTR. - Therefore, the orders passed by the Charity Commissioner dated 10.04.2003 and the District Judge dated 23.02.2006 deserve to be set aside.

Fact of the Case:

An application was filed on 30.05.1952 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum (ACC/B) under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 seeking permission to create a trust in the name of Sri. Veerabhadra Dev of Godachi village of Ramadurga Taluk, Belgaum District. The ACC/B passed an order dated 24.11.1953 registering the trust and the name of Narsoji Rao Shinde was entered in the Public Trust Register (PTR) as sole trustee and it was claimed that the trusteeship was to be inherited hereditarily by succession. The said Narsoji Rao Shinde died on 27.05.1974 leaving behind his two sons namely Uday Singh and Pratap Singh, who submitted a report to change the name of the Trustees in the PTR. The ACC/B passed an order dated 16.08.1974 allowing the said application, consequent to which the names of Uday Singh and Pratap Singh were entered in the PTR. However, on 20.01.1975, the eldest son namely, Uday Singh got an application filed in the name of his younger brother, Pratap Singh and sought deletion of the name of Pratap Singh on the ground that Uday Singh was managing the affairs of the trust and that the founder trustee desired that the Trust should be managed by his eldest son. The ACC/B rejected the application in terms of the order dated 19.02.1975. Long thereafter, Uday Singh filed two Revision Petitions Nos.15/2000 and 16/2002 before the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum along with applications for condonation of delay of 26 years challenging the earlier order dated 16.08.1974 and the subsequent order dated 19.02.1975. The two revision petitions were considered by the Charity Commissioner, who allowed them in terms of the order dated 10.04.2003. Later, Pratap Singh filed two Misc. Applications 61/2003 and 62/2003 before the II Additional District Judge, Belgaum. During the pendency of the proceedings, Pratap Singh died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The learned District Judge considered the two applications and in terms of the common order dated 23.02.2006 dismissed them.

Finding of the Court:

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 are set aside. Consequently, the order dated 16.08.1974 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum is restored.

Issues: 1. Whether the Charity Commissioner was justified in condoning the delay of 26 years in filing the revision petitions? 2. Whether the mode of succession to the office of Trustee is hereditary or by the eldest son?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Charity Commissioner erred in condoning the delay of 26 years in filing the revision petitions, as the applicant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay. 2. The mode of succession to the office of Trustee is hereditary, as per the application for registration of the Trust and the PTR register.

Final Decision: The appeals are 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 are set aside. Consequently, the order dated 16.08.1974 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum is restored.