- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Marikamba Temple And Hanumant Temple v. Subraya Venkataramanappa Barkur
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, a Temple acting as plaintiff, filed multiple suits against various parties challenging the validity of certain alienations made by previous trustees of trust properties. The petitioner sought a decree for possession of these properties. The courts below held that the suits were not maintainable under the provisions of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (“the Act”). The petitioner challenged these findings through connected revision petitions. A subsidiary contention was also raised regarding the trial Court's jurisdictional competence, specifically whether the trial Court could raise jurisdictional issues not pleaded by the defendants.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the suits filed by the petitioner fall within the ambit and scope of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
- Whether the trial Court was competent to raise the issue of jurisdiction despite the defendants not pleading it.
- Whether section 50 applies only to suits against trustees or also to suits against other persons.
- Whether section 50 applies only to cases involving disputes as to the true character of the property.
- Whether the rights of the deity, as a juridical person, are affected by section 50.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The suits filed by the petitioner are maintainable and do not fall within the restrictive ambit of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
- The trial Court was not competent to raise jurisdictional issues that were not pleaded by the defendants.
- Section 50 applies only to suits against trustees and does not extend to suits against other parties.
- The section applies only where there is a dispute as to the true character of the property, implying that “such property” in section 50(ii) refers to property whose status as trust property is contested.
- Section 50 does not affect the rights of the deity, a juridical person, and thus the suits instituted by the trustees on behalf of the deity should not be barred.
Court’s Observations on Arguments
- The trial Court was correct in raising the issue of jurisdiction suo motu since the plaint averments brought the case within the scope of section 50.
- Section 50 applies broadly to “any case” and “any person” where reliefs fall within its scope, and is not limited to suits against trustees alone.
- The section is wider than section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, designed to safeguard trust properties from speculative litigations by trustees or others.
- The word “such property” in section 50(ii) refers to property belonging to a public trust and is not limited to cases where the character of the property is disputed.
- The suits instituted by the Trustees on behalf of the deity fall within the scope of section 50, and therefore the trial Court was not the proper forum to try these suits.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the scope of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, emphasizing its broad applicability to suits involving public trust properties. The court noted that section 50 applies to “any case” instituted against “any person” where reliefs such as possession recovery or declarations regarding trust property are sought. The court rejected the contention that the section applies only to suits against trustees or only to disputes about the character of the property. It highlighted the wide language of the section, including phrases like “in any case” and “from any person including a person holding adversely to the public trust,” to underscore its expansive reach. The court further clarified that the trial Court must consider jurisdictional questions even if not pleaded by defendants, if the plaint’s averments bring the case within section 50. Finally, the court observed that suits instituted by a juridical person such as the deity, through trustees, also fall within the section’s ambit, making the trial Court improper for adjudication of these suits.
Holding and Implications
The court dismissed the revision petitions, upholding the findings of the courts below that the suits filed by the petitioner are not maintainable under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Specifically, C.R.P (B) 43 of 56 and C.R.P (B) 37 of 56 were dismissed with costs, while other connected petitions had no order as to costs.
The direct effect of this decision is that suits challenging alienations of trust property and seeking possession must conform to the procedural safeguards and jurisdictional requirements under section 50 of the Act. The decision does not set any new precedent beyond affirming the wide scope and mandatory application of section 50 to such suits, including those instituted by trustees on behalf of a deity as a juridical person.
These are connected revision petitions, and common questions of law arise for consideration.
The petitioner as plaintiff filed a number of suits against several parties challenging the validity of certain alienations effected by the previous trustees. A decree for possession was prayed for. The plaintiff (Petitioner) is a Temple and the properties involved in the several suits are admittedly trust properties. The question for consideration is as to whether these suits fall within the ambit of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act No. XXIX of 1950) which shall be hereinafter called “the Act”. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that these suits are not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in the aforesaid section 50. The findings of the Courts below are challenged before me. Another subsidiary contention has also been raised to the effect that the question of jurisdiction having not been put in issue by the defendants, the trial Court was not competent to raise the same.
There is no substance in the contention that the trial Court was incompetent to raise the issue of jurisdiction when that was not pleaded by the defendants. If the plaint averments brought the case within the scope of section 50 of the Act then it was incumbent on the trial Court to consider the question of jurisdiction whether the same was pleaded by the defendants or not.
The only important question for consideration is, whether the suits, in question come within the mischief of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The relevant portion of the said section reads as follows:
“In any case—
(i) where it is alleged that there is a breach of public trust.
(ii) where a declaration is necessary that a particular property is a property belonging to a public trust or where a direction is required to recover the possession of such property (or the proceeds thereof or for an account of such property or proceeds) from any person including a person holding adversely to the public trust, or
(iii) where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any public trust the Charity Commissioner or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner as provided in section 51 may institute a suit whether contentions or not in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree for any of the following reliefs:—
(a) an order for the recovery of the possession of such property (or proceeds thereof)………………”
(underlining is mine).
Section 51 provides the manner in which the “persons having interest” could obtain the consent of the Charity Commissioner. “Person having interest” is defined in section 2(10) of the Act. “Court” is defined in section 2(4) of the Act. It is as follows:
“‘Court’ means in the Greater Bombay, the City Civil Court and elsewhere the District Court.”
In these suits the plaintiff prays for a decree for possession. The decree is one form of “direction” and consequently the relief prayed for falls within the scope of section 50(ii) of the Act. Section 50 of the Act applies to “any case” and instituted against “any person” so long as the reliefs prayed for fall within the scope of that section. I am unable to accept the contention that this section applies only to suits against the trustees. This section is not co-extensive with section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is true that this section is modelled on section 92 C.P.C; but its scope is much wider. It is intended to safeguard the trust properties from speculative litigations launched either by the trustees or others.
It is next contended that the aforesaid section 50 applies only to cases where there is a dispute as to the true character of the property. It is contended that the word “such property” found in section 50(ii) refers to the first portion of the said sub-section, i.e, “where a declaration is necessary that a particular property is a property belonging to a public trust”. I am unable to accept this contention as sound. Section 50(ii) provides for several classes of suits, i.e, (i) where a declaration is necessary that a particular property is a property belonging to a public trust; (ii) where a direction is required to recover the possession of such property; (iii) where a direction is required for the recovery of the proceeds thereof and (iv) where direction is required for an account of such property or proceeds. The juxtaposition of the word “such property” clearly indicates that it refers to property belonging to a public trust. The wide scope of this section is made abundantly clear by employing the words, “in any case” and “from any person including a person holding adversely to the public trust”.
It was next argued that this section does not affect the rights of the deity which is a juridical person. A juridical person can only act through some human agency. Even a suit instituted by a juridical person comes within the scope of the words “in any case”. In the instant cases the suits were instituted by the Trustees. In any view the trial Court was not the proper Court to try these suits.
In the result, these revision petitions fail and they are dismissed. C.R.P (B) 43 of 56 and C.R.P (B) 37 of 56 are dismissed with costs. In the other C.R.Ps, there will be no order as to costs.
Alert