TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Plaintiffs Recognized as Legitimate Trustees of Temple, Entitled to Recover Properties from Trespassers with No Legal Rights.</h1> <h3>Rajgopal Raghunathdas Somani Versus Ramchandra Hajarimal Jhavar</h3> Rajgopal Raghunathdas Somani Versus Ramchandra Hajarimal Jhavar - TMI Issues Involved:1. Nature of the trust (public or private)2. Proper trustees of the public trust3. Maintainability of the suit without the consent of the Charity Commissioner4. Legal standing of de facto trustees to file the suitIssue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of the Trust (Public or Private)The judgment confirms that Shri Laxminarayan Bhagwan Mandir is a public trust. This conclusion was reached by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and upheld by the Charity Commissioner and the Extra Assistant Judge. The claim by Motilal Ramnarayan that the temple and its properties were a private trust was rejected. The court held that the temple was a public temple and Motilal had no right to be a trustee thereof.2. Proper Trustees of the Public TrustThe main dispute was regarding who should be the proper trustees of the public trust. Initially, Narsinghdas Somani and others were recognized as trustees. The Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed thirteen persons as trustees, excluding three from the list submitted by Narsinghdas Somani. The Charity Commissioner, upon appeal, appointed seven persons as trustees, including Rangachari Guru Ramanujachari as a de facto trustee. The Extra Assistant Judge confirmed these findings. The court found that the plaintiffs were recognized as trustees by the Charity Commissioner and the Extra Assistant Judge, and thus had the right to file the suit.3. Maintainability of the Suit Without the Consent of the Charity CommissionerThe defendants argued that the suit could not be filed without the consent of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The court analyzed Section 50 and concluded that it was not intended to bar every suit a trustee could bring as the legal owner of the property. The section is protective and enabling, allowing persons interested in the trust to sue if the trustees fail in their duty. The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs did not fall within the ambit of Section 50 and that it was not necessary to obtain the Charity Commissioner's consent before filing the suit.4. Legal Standing of De Facto Trustees to File the SuitThe court examined whether de facto trustees could maintain a suit for the possession of trust properties. It was found that the plaintiffs were recognized as trustees by the Charity Commissioner and the Extra Assistant Judge, and thus had the right to file the suit. The court held that even de facto trustees could sue for the possession of trust properties from persons who have no right, title, or interest therein. The plaintiffs were found to be associated with the management of the temple for a considerable time, and the defendants were adjudged as trespassers. The court emphasized that public trusts' interests must be safeguarded, and thus, the plaintiffs were entitled to bring the suit.Conclusion:The court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, dismissing the First Appeal No. 573 of 1963. The plaintiffs, recognized as trustees, were entitled to file the suit to recover the properties of Shri Laxminarayan Bhagwan Mandir from the defendants, who had no right, title, or interest therein.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
