Defining Locus Standi: An Analysis of "Person Having Interest in the Trust" under Indian Law

Defining Locus Standi: An Analysis of "Person Having Interest in the Trust" under Indian Law

Introduction

The concept of a "person having interest in the trust" is fundamental to the administration, supervision, and enforcement of trusts in India, particularly public charitable and religious trusts. This legal construct determines who possesses the requisite locus standi to approach judicial or quasi-judicial authorities for various reliefs, including the framing of schemes, removal of trustees, prevention of mismanagement, or seeking directions for the trust's proper administration. The determination of such "interest" is crucial, as it balances the need for accountability of trusts with the prevention of frivolous or vexatious litigation by individuals lacking a genuine connection or stake in the trust's affairs. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the statutory definitions and judicial interpretations of "person having interest in the trust" under Indian law, drawing primarily from the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and pertinent case law.

Statutory Framework: Defining "Person Having Interest"

Several statutes in India provide definitions or contexts for understanding who qualifies as a "person having interest." The most detailed provisions are often found in state-specific enactments governing public trusts.

The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (MPT Act)

Section 2(10) of the MPT Act provides an inclusive definition of "person having interest." This definition has been pivotal in numerous judicial pronouncements. As cited in cases like Shree Gollaleshwar Dev And Others v. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1985) and People'S Education Society v. Mansing S. Moray (Bombay High Court, 2015), Section 2(10) includes:

  • (a) In the case of a temple: a person who is entitled to attend at or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in that habit of partaking in the distribution of gifts thereof.
  • (b) In the case of a math: a disciple of the math or a person of the religious persuasion to which the math belongs.
  • (c) In the case of a wakf: a person who is entitled to receive any pecuniary or other benefit from the wakf and includes a person who has a right to worship or to perform any religious rite in a mosque, idgah, imambara, dargah, maqbara or other religious institutions connected with the wakf or to participate in any religious or charitable institution under the wakf.
  • (d) In the case of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860: any member of such society.
  • (e) In the case of any other public trust: any trustee or beneficiary.

The evolution of clause (e) is noteworthy, as highlighted in SHRI. MAGANLAL HIMATRAM BARFIWALA CHARITY TRUST AND ORS. v. MRIDANGRAJ HIRALAL SUCHAK (Bombay High Court, 2019), where it was pointed out that the words "a beneficiary" were substituted by "any trustee or beneficiary" by Maharashtra Act 20 of 1971. Furthermore, the definition of "beneficiary" itself was restrictively defined by an amendment (L.A. BILL No. LIX OF 2017) inserting Section 2(2A) to the MPT Act, which includes only a person entitled to any of the benefit as per the objects of the trust explained in the trust deed or the scheme, and no other person (Maganlal Himatram Barfiwala And Others v. Mridangraj Hiralal Suchak (Bombay High Court, 2019)).

Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

Section 92 CPC, which deals with suits relating to public charities, allows the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court, to institute a suit for various reliefs. The Supreme Court in Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati And Another v. Ramji Tripathi And Another (1974 SCC 2 695) emphasized that for a suit to be maintainable under Section 92, it must be for the protection and preservation of the public trust, and not for vindicating personal or individual rights. The interest required under Section 92 must be a direct and substantial interest in the particular trust, not a mere sentimental or remote interest (Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar And Others (1957 AIR SC 133)). The case of Chairman Madappa v. M. N. Mahanthadevaru And Others (1966 AIR SC 878) also dealt with actions under a scheme settled under Section 92, implicitly recognizing the standing of persons concerned with the trust's administration.

Judicial Interpretation of "Person Having Interest"

Courts have consistently interpreted the phrase "person having interest" to ensure that only those with a genuine stake can intervene in trust affairs.

General Principles

A crucial articulation of the nature of interest required comes from the Madras High Court in S. Guhan and Others v. Rukmini Devi Arundale (Madras High Court, 1986), which, referencing Kumudavalli Ammal v. Purshotham (1978 AIR(Mad) 205), held that "the interest called for should be real, substantive, and an existing interest and not a mere remote, fictitious or contingent one." The Bombay High Court in People'S Education Society v. Mansing S. Moray (Bombay High Court, 2015) further elaborated that the expression "person having interest in the public trust" represents persons having a bona fide and genuine interest as against an interest with an ulterior motive or mala fide intention. The authority considering an application by such a person must record a finding on this aspect, possibly after inquiry (People'S Education Society v. Mansing S. Moray (2015 SCC ONLINE BOM 4654)).

Specific Categories and Contexts

Worshippers, Disciples, and Members

The statutory definitions explicitly recognize worshippers in temples, disciples of maths, and members of societies as persons having interest. This is a common ground for establishing locus standi in matters concerning religious or community-based trusts. The determination of whether a temple is public or private, as in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar And Others (1957 AIR SC 133) and Sri Radhakanta Deb And Another v. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981 SCC 2 226), often hinges on the rights of the public to worship, which in turn informs who might have an interest in its affairs if it is deemed public.

Beneficiaries and Trustees

Under Section 2(10)(e) of the MPT Act, "any trustee or beneficiary" is considered a person having interest in "any other public trust." The definition of "trustee" itself, as per Section 2(18) of the MPT Act, means "a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons, the trust property is vested and includes a manager" (Shree Gollaleshwar Dev And Others v. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1985)). The restrictive amendment to the definition of "beneficiary" in the MPT Act (Section 2(2A)) signifies a legislative intent to narrow the scope of who can claim interest purely on the basis of being a beneficiary, requiring entitlement as per the trust's objects or scheme (Maganlal Himatram Barfiwala And Others v. Mridangraj Hiralal Suchak (Bombay High Court, 2019); SHRI. MAGANLAL HIMATRAM BARFIWALA CHARITY TRUST AND ORS. v. MRIDANGRAJ HIRALAL SUCHAK (Bombay High Court, 2019)). However, trustees, by their very role, inherently possess an interest in the trust. In Rasheed A. Maskati And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Others (1997 SCC ONLINE BOM 571), it was held that a petition by trustees to revert property to the trust is maintainable, as "it is enough if a person having interest in the Trust, moves the Court."

Heirs and Descendants of the Founder

The descendants of the founder of a trust are often considered persons having an interest. In R. Kannan Adityan v. B.S. Adityan (Madras High Court, 1996), the son of the founder was held to be a person having interest, even if he had previously resigned trusteeship, especially where the trust deed itself preferred heirs for appointment as trustees. This aligns with the principle that those connected to the trust's creation and lineage have a legitimate concern for its well-being. The appellants in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar And Others (1957 AIR SC 133), being distant agnates, and in Sri Radhakanta Deb And Another v. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981 SCC 2 226), being family members, initiated proceedings based on their perceived interest in the endowments.

Persons Actively Involved in Trust Affairs

Individuals who have been actively involved in the management or activities of the trust, even if not formally trustees or designated beneficiaries, may be recognized as having an interest. In SHRI MADHUKAR SUKHADEORAO ABHYANKAR v. EKNATH NARAYAN GAWANDE AND OTHERS (Bombay High Court, 2020), an appellant who was shown to be directly and indirectly connected with the trust's affairs and management (having participated in activities and even represented the trust in litigation) was held to be a 'person having interest' for the purpose of an application under Section 41D of the MPT Act, despite disputes over his formal status as a member or Vice President. Similarly, in S. Guhan and Others v. Rukmini Devi Arundale (Madras High Court, 1986), executive committee members and a person who had devoted her lifetime to the institution were deemed to have a real interest, especially concerning a scheme decree, and were not considered mere intermeddlers. The case of Avinash Ganpatrao Shegaonkar v. Jayawant (2010 SCC ONLINE BOM 481) saw an ex-secretary who claimed to have devoted his life to the trust and collected funds being considered a person having interest for an application under Section 47 of the MPT Act (appointment of new trustees).

Distinction from Persons with Adverse or Remote Interests

It is well-established that individuals whose interests are adverse to the trust, or who are merely tenants or employees, do not typically fall within the definition of "person having interest" for the purpose of initiating actions concerning trust administration. The Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable And Others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner And Others (2004 SCC 3 137) held that a tenant of the trust does not fall within the category of a person having an interest in the trust for invoking Section 51 of the MPT Act (consent of Charity Commissioner for suits under Section 50). This was reiterated in S.H. Jawandhiya v. Onkareshwar Birbal Prasad Mishra (Bombay High Court, 1994) and Maganlal Himatram Barfiwala And Others v. Mridangraj Hiralal Suchak . (Bombay High Court, 2019), where it was emphasized that a tenant, especially one in litigation with the trust, cannot misuse provisions like Section 41D of the MPT Act. The Gujarat High Court in Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-Ii v. Premanand Industrial Co-Operative Service Society Ltd. (Gujarat High Court, 1979), while dealing with the Land Acquisition Act, noted that mere members of co-operative societies might not be "persons interested" in the land if their interest is not direct, illustrating the general principle of requiring a direct stake.

Procedural Aspects and Locus Standi

The determination of whether an individual is a "person having interest" is a threshold issue for establishing locus standi. Section 73A of the MPT Act, for instance, allows a "person having interest in the public trust" to be joined as a party to proceedings, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the inquiry officer (People'S Education Society v. Mansing S. Moray (2015 SCC ONLINE BOM 4654)). The authority must first ascertain if the applicant indeed qualifies as such.

For suits under Section 50 of the MPT Act (e.g., for removal of a trustee, appointment of a new trustee, etc.), the action can be instituted by the Charity Commissioner or "two or more persons having an interest in the trust" after obtaining the consent of the Charity Commissioner under Section 51 (S.H. Jawandhiya v. Onkareshwar Birbal Prasad Mishra (Bombay High Court, 1994); Sopan Sukhdeo Sable And Others v. Assistant Charity Commissioner And Others (2004 SCC 3 137)). However, for suits for declaration or injunction under Section 50(iv), the Bombay High Court in Gaud Saraswat Brahmin Temple Trust, Mumbai And Others v. Vasudeo Kamlesh P. Shetye And Others (Bombay High Court, 2010) observed that such a suit might be instituted by one or more such persons having interest.

The case of Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami v. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami (1904 SCC ONLINE MAD 25), concerning succession to a mutt, involved a plaintiff whose claim was based on an asserted interest in the headship, demonstrating how fundamental this concept is to initiating legal action, even if the claim itself may fail on other grounds. While Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State Of Bihar And Another (2024 SCC ONLINE SC 87) dealt with the misuse of criminal litigation in property transactions, its emphasis on the proper basis for legal proceedings indirectly resonates with the need for genuine standing in trust matters. The administration of an educational trust, as touched upon in T. Varghese George v. Kora K. George And Others (2012 SCC 1 369), while primarily focusing on minority rights, also involves questions of who can be concerned with its governance, which relates back to having an interest. The case of Arun Family Trust v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Gujarat High Court, 2006), though an income tax matter, discussed beneficiaries' accounts and interest payments, which can be relevant in identifying financial beneficiaries of a trust.

Evolving Landscape and Challenges

The legal framework surrounding "person having interest" is dynamic. Legislative amendments, such as those to the MPT Act, reflect an ongoing effort to refine this concept, often aiming to restrict interference by those without a clear, legitimate, and direct stake, particularly a defined beneficial interest. The challenge for courts and quasi-judicial authorities lies in meticulously applying the statutory definitions and judicial precedents to the specific facts of each case. This involves distinguishing genuine stakeholders from "intermeddlers or third parties or busy bodies having no local interest in the affairs of the Society" (S. Guhan and Others v. Rukmini Devi Arundale (Madras High Court, 1986)).

The requirement for authorities to make a preliminary finding on the "interest" of an applicant, as emphasized in People'S Education Society v. Mansing S. Moray (Bombay High Court, 2015), is a crucial safeguard. This ensures that the proceedings are not unduly burdened by parties whose claims to have an interest are tenuous or motivated by extraneous considerations. The interpretation must also consider the nature of the trust; for instance, in ancient religious institutions like mutts, the "interest" of disciples or those of the same religious persuasion is recognized (Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami v. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami (1904 SCC ONLINE MAD 25)).

The case of SHREE KHAMBHATI MODH VANIK SAMAJ THR. TRUSTEE KAUSHIK H CHANDAWALLA Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. GP AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 2023), referencing Shree Gollaleshwar Dev, indicates the continuing relevance and judicial scrutiny of this phrase, particularly in distinguishing the interests of trustees acting for the trust versus vindicating private rights.

Conclusion

The determination of a "person having interest in the trust" is a gatekeeping mechanism essential for the orderly administration of justice in trust law. Indian statutes, particularly the MPT Act, provide an inclusive but categorized definition, which has been extensively interpreted by the judiciary. The overarching principle is that the interest must be real, substantial, existing, and bona fide, directly connected to the specific trust in question. It should not be remote, fictitious, contingent, or adverse to the trust's objectives.

Courts have recognized various categories of persons as having such interest, including worshippers, disciples, members of the founder's family, active participants in trust management, trustees, and defined beneficiaries. Conversely, mere tenants or those with adversarial claims are generally excluded. The evolving jurisprudence, including legislative amendments, seeks to strike a balance between ensuring accountability and preventing unwarranted interference in trust management. A nuanced, fact-sensitive approach by adjudicatory bodies remains paramount in upholding the integrity of this vital legal concept, thereby safeguarding the interests of genuine stakeholders and the public good that trusts are intended to serve.