1967 (9) TMI 148 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms Municipality's duty as trustee for religious beneficiaries. Rejection of key arguments.

Municipality Of Taloda Versus Charity Commissioner, Bombay

The Supreme Court confirmed that the Municipality held the property as a trustee of a public trust for the benefit of 'Sadhus, saints, and religious ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Municipality holds the property as a trustee of a public trust.2. Whether the decision in the previous suit against Baba Haridas operates as res judicata.3. Whether the decision of the City Survey Officer under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, affects the current proceedings.4. Whether the beneficiaries of the trust constitute a section of the public.5. Procedural objections regarding the scope of the Assistant Charity Commissioner's inquiry.6. The right of the Charity Commissioner to appeal against the District Court's decision.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the Municipality holds the property as a trustee of a public trust:The primary issue was whether the Municipality of Taloda held the property in question as a trustee of a public trust. The property was originally transferred by Dagadu Khushal to the Municipality for 'public purpose' to be used for sheltering 'Sadhus, saints, and religious mendicants.' The Assistant Charity Commissioner and the High Court of Bombay held that the Municipality held the property as a trustee of a public trust. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, stating that once the Municipality accepted the property for the purposes mentioned in the deed, it could not divert the use of the property for its own purposes. The Court rejected the argument that the Municipality could not accept a trust for a section of the public, stating that there was nothing in the Act or general law preventing such an acceptance.2. Whether the decision in the previous suit against Baba Haridas operates as res judicata:The Municipality argued that the decision in the 1936 suit against Baba Haridas, which negated the Johari community's rights to the property, should operate as res judicata. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, noting that the suit against Baba Haridas was about the Municipality's right to possession, not about the existence of a public trust. Baba Haridas was sued as a trespasser, not in a representative capacity for the beneficiaries of the trust. Therefore, the judgment did not prevent the Assistant Charity Commissioner from determining the trust's nature in the current proceedings.3. Whether the decision of the City Survey Officer under the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, affects the current proceedings:The Municipality contended that the City Survey Officer's decision, which declared the Municipality as the property's owner, should preclude the current proceedings. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the legal ownership of the Municipality was not challenged; instead, it was contended that the property was held subject to a public trust. The proceedings under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act were not to set aside the City Survey Officer's order but to declare the property as part of a public trust.4. Whether the beneficiaries of the trust constitute a section of the public:The Assistant Judge had held that 'Sadhus, saints, and religious mendicants' did not form a section of the public, and therefore, the trust was not for an object of general public utility. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the beneficiaries were an uncertain and fluctuating body of persons forming a considerable section of the public with a common bond of veneration for the samadhi. The Court referenced Section 9 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, which includes the advancement of any object of general public utility within the definition of a charitable purpose. Therefore, the trust was deemed to be for a public, religious, and charitable purpose.5. Procedural objections regarding the scope of the Assistant Charity Commissioner's inquiry:The Municipality argued that the Assistant Charity Commissioner should have dismissed the application once it was found that the property was not for the benefit of the Johari Panchas. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the proceedings under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act were to determine the existence of a public trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner was bound to declare the existence of the public trust and register it, regardless of the specific claims made by the applicants.6. The right of the Charity Commissioner to appeal against the District Court's decision:The Municipality contended that the Charity Commissioner, being a judicial authority, could not appeal against the District Court's decision. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that the Charity Commissioner is responsible for superintending the administration and carrying out the provisions of the Act. Denying the right to appeal would hinder the Charity Commissioner's ability to ensure proper administration of public trust property. The Charity Commissioner was entitled to support his order and appeal against an adverse decision.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the property in question was held by the Municipality as a trustee of a public trust for the benefit of 'Sadhus, saints, and religious mendicants.' The Court upheld the findings of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the High Court, rejecting all procedural and substantive objections raised by the Municipality. The appeal was dismissed with costs in favor of the Charity Commissioner.