1959 (4) TMI 43 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies scope of Bihar Trust Act: Public vs. private trusts. Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside.

Ram Saroop Dasji Versus S.P. Sahi

The Supreme Court held that the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, applies only to public trusts and not private religious trusts. As the Salouna ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, apply to private religious trusts.2. Whether the Salouna asthal and its properties constitute a public trust.3. Whether the restrictions imposed by the Act violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, to Private Religious Trusts:The principal point urged by the appellant was whether the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, apply to private religious trusts. The appellant contended that the Act does not apply to private religious trusts. The court examined the definition clause in Section 2(1) of the Act, which defines a 'religious trust' as any express or constructive trust created or existing for any purpose recognized by Hindu Law to be religious, pious, or charitable, excluding trusts created according to the Sikh religion or purely for the benefit of the Sikh community and private endowments created for the worship of a family idol in which the public are not interested.The court noted that the High Court had previously held that the language of Section 2(1) was wide enough to cover both private and public trusts recognized by Hindu law. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the definition clause should be read in a restricted sense to include only Hindu religious or charitable trusts of a public character. The court referred to Section 4(5) of the Act, which states that the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, and Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall not apply to any religious trust in the State as defined in the Act. Since these earlier enactments applied exclusively to public trusts, the court concluded that the definition clause in Section 2(1) was intended to cover only public trusts.The court further analyzed other provisions of the Act, such as Sections 29(1), 30(1), and 32, which were more appropriate to public trusts than to private trusts. The court also noted that the Act's preamble stated its purpose was for the better administration of Hindu religious trusts in Bihar and for the protection and preservation of properties appertaining to such trusts, which implied public trusts. Consequently, the court held that the definition clause does not include private trusts and the Act does not apply to them.2. Nature of the Salouna Asthal and its Properties:The appellant argued that the Salouna asthal and its properties did not constitute a public trust. The High Court had previously declared in First Appeal No. 10 of 1941 that the Salouna asthal and its properties did not constitute a public trust. Although the respondents were not parties to that litigation, they did not provide any evidence to contradict the earlier declaration. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had commented on the appellant's failure to produce all relevant documents but did not find it necessary to re-examine the evidence. The court concluded that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the appellant was entitled to assert that the Salouna asthal and its properties did not constitute a public trust, and therefore, the Act did not apply to it.3. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(f):The appellant alternatively argued that if the Act applied to private trusts, several of its provisions would violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The High Court had rejected this argument, adopting the rule of English law that the State should exercise superintendence and control over the administration of private trusts in the interests of the general public. The Supreme Court, however, did not find it necessary to pronounce on this contention, given its finding that the Act did not apply to private trusts. The court acknowledged that a serious question of constitutional validity would have arisen if the Act were held to apply to private trusts.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and directed the issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the order of the respondent Board. The court prohibited the respondents from interfering with the appellant's rights in managing the Salouna asthal and its properties unless they obtained a determination that the Salouna asthal constituted a public trust. The appellant was awarded costs throughout.