Merits-based adjudication in trust property disputes cannot be avoided by withdrawal after a consent remand.

A prior remand for decision on merits, obtained by consent, could not be defeated by allowing withdrawal of the revision and original petition. The Court noted that the dispute concerned the character of trust property, the existence of a specific endowment, and the statutory consequences for any proposed sale, all of which required merits-based adjudication. It further indicated that the revisional court could examine the jurisdictional fact and, if necessary, admit or direct further evidence to resolve the controversy. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh consideration of the substantive trust and endowment issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in permitting withdrawal of the revision and the original petition in the face of earlier directions that the matter be decided on merits. (ii) Whether the questions relating to the nature of the property, the existence of a specific endowment, and the need for statutory permission for sale required adjudication on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in permitting withdrawal of the revision and the original petition in the face of earlier directions that the matter be decided on merits.

Analysis: The earlier remand by the Supreme Court had been made on consent of the parties and was intended to secure an adjudication on the merits of the controversy. The trustees had obtained the benefit of that remand after the Commissioner's proceedings against them were dropped. In that setting, the subsequent attempt to withdraw the proceedings would defeat the very object of the remand and prevent the High Court from deciding the matter as directed.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have allowed withdrawal of the proceedings, and its order on that aspect could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the questions relating to the nature of the property, the existence of a specific endowment, and the need for statutory permission for sale required adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the trust deed, the character of the property, and the jurisdictional consequences flowing from that character. If the property was a dedicated corpus or a specific endowment, the District Court's jurisdiction under the Trusts Act and the applicability of the Endowments Act had to be examined. The controversy also involved public interest and the Court's supervisory role in charitable and religious trusts. The High Court, in revision, could examine the jurisdictional fact and, if necessary, take additional evidence or direct recording of evidence.

Conclusion: These issues required decision on merits and in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the substantive questions arising from the trust deed, the character of the property, and the statutory requirements governing sale.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier remand for decision on merits has been obtained by consent and the controversy involves the jurisdictional nature of trust property affecting public religious endowments, withdrawal cannot be permitted to defeat adjudication, and the revisional court may determine the jurisdictional fact and direct further evidence if needed.

---