Shri Dnyaneshwar Mad... v. Charity Commissioner..., Bombay High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Appeal No. 128 of 1971

Advocates

— J.N Chandurkar.
— G.A Paunikar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader.

Judges

R.D Tulpule
M.R Waikar, JJ.

Acts

section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (called hereinafter the Act)
interference.7. Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1860
Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The appeal arises from the dismissal of an application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 by the Extra Assistant Judge, Amravati. The applicant (unsuccessful below) sought to set aside an order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner which had confirmed the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola.

Factual summary (as stated in the opinion): The late Gulabrao Maharaj, blind from birth and regarded as a saint, dedicated his self-acquired property by will for performing puja of certain objects of worship. He entrusted the property to nine trustees/executors. In 1953 the survivors of these trustees and other disciples formed a society named "Shri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sampradayik Mandal" to administer the Sansthan's property; the society was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 5 March 1953. The Memorandum of Association (clause 2 and sub-clause (c)) set out objects to establish, run and subsidise religious and educational institutions to advance religious, mental and moral education of the Hindu public in general according to the Sampradaya's principles, and to print, edit and publish the writings of Shri Gulabrao Maharaj and propagate his teachings.

The Assistant Charity Commissioner held that the registered society was a public trust within the meaning of section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and rejected the Mandal's contention that it was a private trust for a limited class (followers). The Deputy Charity Commissioner, in an appeal under section 70, maintained that finding. An application under section 72 to the Extra Assistant Judge, Amravati was dismissed. This first appeal challenges that dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Mandal (Shri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sampradayik Mandal), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is a "public trust" within the meaning of section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as recorded)

The Mandal was a private trust established for the benefit of the followers of the Sampradaya, a limited and ascertainable class, and therefore not a "public trust".
Reliance on precedents (including Administrator of Shringeri Math) to argue that the word "public" must be read before the phrase "religious or charitable purpose" in section 2(13), so that only religious/charitable purposes that are public in character would qualify.
Submitted that the society's activities were for the benefit of a limited number (its members/followers) rather than the public at large.

Authorities' / Respondent Position (as recorded)

The Assistant Charity Commissioner and the Deputy Charity Commissioner found that the Mandal was a public trust under section 2(13), rejecting the contention that it was a private trust. The society was registered under the Societies Registration Act and its Memorandum of Association demonstrated religious objects directed to the public at large.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Gurpur Guni Venkataraya v. B.C. Achis, 1977 3 SCC 17	Decision under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act turning on the definition of "temple" and whether the Hindu public generally used the temple as a place of worship as of right.	The court noted this authority but held it of little assistance to the present case because that case turned on statutory definitions applicable to temples rather than societies registered under the Societies Registration Act.
The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, 1971 1 SCC 574	Considered whether certain properties fell within the definition of Religious Trust under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act.	The court observed this decision too was of little assistance for the present matter, since it arose under a different statutory scheme and concerned issues particular to that Act.
Administrator of Shringeri Math v. Charity Commissioner, Bombay, 1963 Mh. LJ 709 (Division Bench)	Observations that the enumeration following "includes" in the definition of "public trust" is illustrative, that institutions enumerated must be for the benefit of the public or a section of it, and that certain definitions (e.g., "Temple", "Math") require dedication to public use or use by the community as of right.	The court considered these observations and rejected their direct application to societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, explaining that such societies intrinsically differ from the specifically enumerated institutions and that registration together with a religious/charitable object will render a society a public trust under section 2(13).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court confined its factual inquiry to clause 2 of the Mandal's Memorandum of Association (noting it was unnecessary to examine the terms of the will). Clause 2 and sub-clause (c) plainly established that the society's objects were to propagate religious teachings, to establish and support religious and educational institutions, to advance religious, mental and moral education of the Hindu public in general, and to publish and propagate the writings and teachings of Gulabrao Maharaj.

The court then analysed the statutory definition of "public trust" in section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It observed that the present case falls within the final clause of that definition which expressly includes "a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860." Two conditions in that clause were identified and found satisfied: (1) the Mandal is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act; and (2) the society was formed for a religious purpose.

Addressing the appellant's argument (derived from the Shringeri Math observations) that the word "public" must be read before "religious or charitable purpose", the court explained why that reasoning did not assist here. The court noted that the Division Bench in Shringeri Math was addressing institutions specifically enumerated in the definition (temples, maths, etc.) whose separate definitions required dedication to public use or use by a section of the community. By contrast, a registered society is of a different character: when a society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and its objects are religious or charitable, that status itself places it within the definition of "public trust" without needing to read the word "public" again into the last clause. The court further observed that, on the facts, the Mandal's religious activities were manifestly not limited to a narrow ascertained class but were intended for the benefit of the public at large.

On this basis the court concluded that the finding of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Deputy Charity Commissioner and the lower court that the Mandal was a public trust was proper and required no interference.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL and awarded costs (the opinion concludes "Appeal dismissed" and records dismissal with costs).

Implications:

Direct effect on parties: The prior determinations that the "Shri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sampradayik Mandal" is a public trust under section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act stand affirmed; the orders of the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the Deputy Charity Commissioner, as well as the dismissal by the Extra Assistant Judge, are upheld.
Scope as precedent: The court's reasoning underscores that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act which has religious or charitable objects falls within the last clause of section 2(13) without the need to read an additional requirement of the word "public" into that clause. The opinion expressly distinguishes prior decisions concerning specifically enumerated institutions (temples, maths) and explains why those decisions do not control societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. The court did not purport to lay down a broad new rule beyond this statutory interpretation and application to the facts; its decision operates to affirm the statutory construction applied and the factual finding that the Mandal's objects were public in character.

Appeal dismissed.

Show full summary ...

Shri Dnyaneshwar Madhuradwait Sampradayik Mandal, Amravati v. Charity Commissioner, Bombay And Another

Waikar, J.:— This first appeal is filed by the unsuccessful applicant against dismissal of his application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (called hereinafter the Act) by the Extra assistant Judge, Amravati. It was prayed that the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner confirming the order passed by the assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola be set aside.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the late Gulabrao Maharaj, who was blind from his birth and possessed certain occult powers, was regarded by Hindu public as a saint who propogated the religious teachings and philosophy of the Vedas. He had established in his life-time a Sampradaya of his own, which was called “Shri Dnyaneshwar Madhuradwait Sampradaya”. He executed a will under which he dedicated all his self-acquired property for performing Puja of the foot prints (Padukas) of Shri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj and the image of Shrikrishna, which were the objects of his worship during his life-time and which also became the objects of worship of his followers after his death. The property which he thus dedicated for the religious worship and teachings of his Sampradaya was handed over by him to 9 persons who were the trustees-cum-executors of the said will. In the year 1953, the survivors of the trustees and the executors of the will and other disciples of late Gulabrao Maharaj formed a Society named “Shri Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sampradayik Mandal” as a permanent arrangement for the due administration of the properties of the Sansthan. This Society so formed was registered under the Societies Registration Act on 5th March 1953. The Memorandum of association of the Mandal and the rules and regulations regarded as “instrument” of the Trust governed the administration of the trust property at the hands of this Mandal. The assistant Charity Commissioner found that this Society registered under the Societies Registration Act was a public trust within the meaning of section 2(13) of the Act. He negatived the contention that was put forth by the Mandal that it constituted a private trust established for the benefit of the followers of the Sampradaya, which was a limited and ascertained class and not for the benefit of all Hindu public in general.

3. The Deputy Charity Commissioner in the appeal under section 70 of the Act, maintained the above rinding, dismissing the appeal that was preferred, whereupon an application under section 72 of the Act came to be filed before the Extra assistant Judge, Amravati, who also dismissed the same and hence this first appeal.

4. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the lower Court and the authorities concerned erred in holding that the Mandal was a public trust within the meaning of section 2(13) of the Act.

5. It is not necessary for us to turn to the terms of the will of late Gulabrao Maharaj. The object and purpose of the Society, as mentioned in clause 2 of the Memorandum of association alone needs reference for the purpose of the present enquiry. It appears that the object of the Society was to establish, run and subsidise religious and educational institutions with a view to advance the cause of religious, mental and moral education of the equal public in general according to the principles propounded in Sampradaya Surataru and of the followers of late Gulabrao Maharaj in particular. Sub-clause (c) of clause (2) of this Memorandum of association of the Mandal stated that one of the objects of this Society was to print, edit and publish the various writings of Shri Gulabrao Maharaj and to take steps to propogate his teachings in the public for religious, moral and mental uplift of the people.

6. All these objects of the society clearly point out that this Society was formed primarily for religious teachings and worship, if not also for a charitable purpose. Thus there could be no doubt that this Mandal or Society was formed for religious purpose and was registered under the Societies Registration Act. In fact the said object is writ large in several clauses of the Memorandum of association and Shri Chandurkar, appearing for the appellant, also did not dispute this position. This finding pronounced by the lower Court and the concerned authorities, therefore, calls for no interference.

7. Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 which defines “public trust” is in the following terms:

“2(13) “public trust” means an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, a wakf, church synagogue, agiary or other place of public religious worship, a dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.”

8. The present case falls under the last clause of this definition and satisfies both the conditions, namely, that it is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and as pointed out above, the society was formed for a religious purpose.

9. Shri Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the appellant, referred us to Gurpur Guni Venkataraya v. B.C Achis . 1977 3 SCC 17 and The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das . 1971 1 SCC 574. The first case was under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act and the question was whether the temple in question was a public temple or a temple belonging to Goud Saraswats and the decision mainly turned on the definition of the term ‘Temple’ as defined in the said Act with reference to the circumstances disclosed in evidence as to whether the Hindu generally used the temple as a place of worship as of right. The second case was under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act and the question involved for consideration was whether the properties in question were properties of public trust within the meaning of the term Religious Trust as defined under that Act. Both these cases, in our opinion, are of little assistance so far as the present matter is concerned.

10. Administrator Of Shringeri Math v. Charity Commissioner, Bombay*, Bombay . 1963 Mh. LJ 709. and particularly to the following observations made therein by the Division Bench:

“In our view, therefore, the enumeration following the word “includes” in the definition of “public trust” in clause (13) is illustrative and was not intended to extend the definition to private institutions. These are enumerated as answer to a possible argument that they are not express trusts nor constructive trusts. In our view, in order to amount to a “public trust” within the Act the institution must be for the benefit of the public or a section of it.”

11. Based on these observations, what is argued by Shri Chandurkar is that the word “public” must be read preceding the expression “Religious or Charitable purpose” in section 2(13) of the Act, since it is necessary that the society must be formed for public religious or public charitable purpose. This argument in a way postulates that the society in question was to carry on its activities for the benefit of the limited number of its members and not for the benefit of the public at large. In fact the aim of this Mandal or Society is to educate the members of the public and to uplift their standard in general according to the principles propounded by the Sampradaya and as such any member of the public could follow the same and take benefit of the trust.

12. What was observed by the Division Bench in the above ruling of this Court was that the definition of the word ‘trust’ was not happily worded and it must mean a public temple or a Math. Referring further to the definition of the words “Temple” and “Math”, it was observed that these definitions clearly bring out that they must be dedicated for the public use or they must be used by the Hindu community or a section of it as of right. The dispute related to a Math (Shringeri) which is one of the institutions enumerated following the word “includes” in the definition of “public trust” and what was observed was that though the word ‘public’ did not precede any of these institutions, in order to come within the definition of ‘public trust’, it must first come under the definition of a Math or a temple which are separately defined in the Act and it must further satisfy the qualification that it is public. The above observations, in our opinion, have no application here because the present case does not fall under the illustrative definition of the term ‘public trust’. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act, in our view, intrinsically differs from the institutions mentioned in the earlier part and since the activities of such a registered society would always be considered for the benefit of the public or a section of public, there is no necessity to read the word ‘public’ before the expression “religious or charitable purpose or for both” appearing in the last part of the definition. In other words, in case of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, the fact that its object is either religious or charitable or both will itself render such a society a ‘public trust’ within the meaning of the definition. Assuming, however, the last part of the definition should not be read disjunctively, since the words ‘public religious or charitable’ occur in the earlier part, it was not necessary to duplicate these words again. In the circumstances of the present case, however, the fact that the religious activities of the Mandal were meant not for any limited ascertained section but for the benefit of the public at large is manifest from the Memorandum of association. In our opinion, therefore, the present case clearly and squarely falls under the last clause of the definition of “public trust”, as it satisfies the two requisite conditions, namely, that it is a society formed for a religious purpose and that it is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The finding of the concerned authorities and of the lower Court that it is a public trust, therefore, is proper and calls for no interference.

13. In the result, therefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs.