1938 (5) TMI 15 - Other - Indian Laws

Property not deemed public trust for charitable purposes by Privy Council, overturning High Court judgment.

Parma Nand Versus Nihal Chand and Ors.

The Privy Council held that the property in question, including Baghichi Thakaran and associated properties, did not demonstrate adequate evidence to ... - Issues: Determination of whether a building in Gujranwala, along with attached property, is part of a charitable or religious trust for public purposes.Analysis:1. The main issue in this appeal was whether a building known as Baghichi Thakaran or Gurdwara Baghichi, along with its attached property, constituted a trust for a public charitable or religious purpose. The dispute arose when the defendants, claiming to represent the Hindu public, alleged that the property was a public endowment and called upon the trustee, Mahant Narain Das, to provide details about the trust. The trial court initially ruled against the public nature of the trust, but the High Court of Judicature at Lahore reversed this decision, leading to the appeal to the Privy Council by Pandit Parma Nand, the legal representative of Narain Das. The central question was whether the property was dedicated to a public trust. The High Court placed the onus on the defendants to prove that the property was held in trust for public charitable and religious purposes, which was endorsed by the Privy Council.2. The history of the Baghichi Thakaran or Gurdwara Baghichi was examined to determine the nature of the trust. The institution was founded by Baba Kulla or Kuljas, succeeded by Thakar Ram Das and later by Sant Das, with Narain Das significantly contributing to its prosperity. The income from the properties associated with the institution saw a substantial increase over the years, prompting the legal dispute. The descent of the property from guru to chela, as well as the Udasi ascetic order to which the mahants belonged, was considered. The High Court's judgment was based on the belief that this lineage indicated a religious character of the property, but the Privy Council emphasized that such descent did not automatically make the property religious.3. The High Court primarily relied on the descent of the property and the Udasi order to argue for a religious character of the property. However, the Privy Council noted that the mere acquisition of property by a mahant did not necessarily make it religious in nature. The absence of explicit dedication to public trust, either orally or in writing, raised doubts about the property's intended purpose. The Council highlighted that the property's assignment by the Municipal Committee and the Income Tax exemption did not conclusively prove a public trust, as these actions could have had other motives than charitable endowment.4. The Privy Council scrutinized various pieces of evidence, including wills made by Sant Das and Narain Das, to ascertain the nature of the property. Sant Das's will, describing the property as private and his right to alienate it, contradicted the claim of a public trust. The Council emphasized that the onus was on the defendants to prove the existence of a public trust with clear indications of the author, intention, purpose, property, and beneficiaries. The lack of such evidence led the Council to conclude that the defendants failed to discharge this burden, resulting in the appeal being allowed, and the trial court's decree being reinstated.5. In conclusion, the Privy Council determined that the property in question, including Baghichi Thakaran and associated properties, did not exhibit sufficient evidence to establish a public trust for charitable or religious purposes. The lack of explicit dedication, coupled with the historical and legal analysis, led to the dismissal of the High Court's judgment and the restoration of the trial court's decree. The burden of proof regarding the existence of a public trust was not met by the defendants, resulting in the appeal being allowed, with costs awarded to the appellant.