Public religious trust over samadhi property upheld; beneficiaries treated as a section of the public under the Act.

Property transferred to a Municipality for continued use as shelter for sadhus, saints, religious mendicants and visitors to a samadhi was held subject to a public trust; the transfer deed showed a public purpose, and the Municipality could not divert the property to municipal use. Persons connected with the samadhi were an uncertain and fluctuating body constituting a section of the public, so the trust was religious and charitable within the Act. Earlier civil and survey proceedings did not bar the public trust inquiry because they did not determine the beneficiaries' rights in a representative capacity. The Charity Commissioner and Assistant Charity Commissioner were competent to proceed and support registration of the trust.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the property transferred to the Municipality in 1883 was held subject to a public trust for the benefit of sadhus, saints, religious mendicants and visitors to the samadhi; (ii) whether such beneficiaries constituted a section of the public so that the trust was religious or charitable within the Act; (iii) whether the prior civil and survey proceedings barred the public trust inquiry; and (iv) whether the Charity Commissioner and the Assistant Charity Commissioner were competent to proceed and support the finding of a public trust.

Issue (i): whether the property transferred to the Municipality in 1883 was held subject to a public trust for the benefit of sadhus, saints, religious mendicants and visitors to the samadhi.

Analysis: The deed of transfer showed that the property was handed over for public purpose and for continued use as shelter for religious mendicants and persons connected with the samadhi. The Municipality could not divert the property to its own municipal purposes after accepting the transfer. The trust extended to the whole property and was not confined merely to the buildings standing on it.

Conclusion: The property was held by the Municipality subject to a public trust.

Issue (ii): whether such beneficiaries constituted a section of the public so that the trust was religious or charitable within the Act.

Analysis: Under the Act, charitable purpose includes advancement of any other object of general public utility, and a public trust includes a trust for a public, religious or charitable purpose. Persons who venerate and visit the samadhi formed an uncertain and fluctuating body answering a particular description and constituted a section of the public. A trust for their shelter and use was therefore not confined to a private class and was religious and charitable in character.

Conclusion: The beneficiaries formed a section of the public and the trust was religious and charitable within the Act.

Issue (iii): whether the prior civil and survey proceedings barred the public trust inquiry.

Analysis: The earlier suit against an alleged trespasser did not decide the rights of the beneficiaries in a representative capacity, and therefore did not operate as res judicata in the public trust proceedings. The survey order under the municipal law also did not determine whether the property was subject to a public trust, and the inquiry under the Public Trusts Act was not a suit to set aside that order.

Conclusion: The prior proceedings did not bar the inquiry under the Public Trusts Act.

Issue (iv): whether the Charity Commissioner and the Assistant Charity Commissioner were competent to proceed and support the finding of a public trust.

Analysis: Proceedings under section 19 were not inter partes, and the authority was bound to declare and register a public trust if satisfied on the materials before it, irrespective of the precise relief claimed by the applicant. The Charity Commissioner, being charged with the due administration of the Act and having been made a party, was entitled to support the order in appeal.

Conclusion: The authorities were competent to proceed and the Charity Commissioner was entitled to support the finding.

Final Conclusion: The judgment affirms that the property was impressed with a public religious and charitable trust and that the statutory trust inquiry was maintainable despite the earlier proceedings and procedural objections.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property is transferred for continued use by a fluctuating body of persons associated by a common religious object, the trust may be a public religious and charitable trust, and prior proceedings not determining the beneficiaries' rights in a representative capacity do not bar inquiry under the public trust statute.

---