Dismissed

Municipality of Taloda v. the Charity Commissioner & Ors.

Supreme Court28 Sept 19671967 INSC 225 · [1968] 1 S.C.R. 6521967 INSC 225

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A municipality challenged findings that land conveyed to it for sheltering sadhus was held by it as trustee of a public trust. The Supreme Court upheld that beneficiaries were an uncertain, fluctuating section of the public, rejected survey-order and res judicata objections, affirmed the Charity Commissioner's right to appeal, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of the Charity Commissioner; High Court's restoration of the declaration of public trust upheld.

What the court decided

Municipality of Taloda versus the Charity Commissioner… — Property and Title | Supreme Court (1968)

¶1

¶2

MUNICIPALITY OF TALODA

¶3

¶4

THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER & ORS.

¶5

September 28. 1967

¶6

¶7

[J. C. SHAH AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.]

¶8

Bombay Public Trusts Act (Bom. 29 l·' !WiO) Ss. 2(13) 9 and 72- Decision o Survey Officer-Scope of-Trust fur uP certain and fluctuating body of persons-Decision of Charity ,-.,mmissioner that public trust was not for the sect for which apph.aiion made-Main· tainabi!ity of application-Charity Commissioner, if has right to appeal.

¶9

C Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. 6 of 1873) S. 17-Trust in _favour of a section of genera! public-Acceptance by MunicipalitvRight of Municipality-Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. 3 of 1901) s. 50 A-Decision of Survey Officer-Whether bars proceedings under Bombay Public Trusts Act.

¶10

A property was conveyed to the respondent-Municipality by a deed "for the purpose of Sarvajanik Kam (public purpose) as it has D been utilised ,uptodate for shelter of Atit, Abhyaqat, Sadhu, Sant, etc!'. It was also recited in the deed that in the property conveyed there was "a Samadhi (grave) oti Nagabawa." The Municipality en- tered possession and made certain constructions which were used for its offices and for shops. Thereafter, the Municipality sued for a decree for delivering possession of a part of the property against a Sadhu who had unlawfully occupied it and the suit was decreed. Later, in survey proceedings members of the Johari Panch claimed that they E had entrusted their temple to the Municipality for administering it for the community, but the compound belonged to them and that the Municipality was merely a trustee thereof. The Secretary of the Municipality admitted that in the property there existed a temple of the Joharis and that the members of that community had the right to vis\t the temple at fixed times but that they had no other right. The Survey Officer declared the Municipality to be the owner of the F property and not a trustee for the Johari Panch. Thereupon, an application under s. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was filed for a declaration that the property was settled in favour of the Municipality for the benefit· of the Johari Panch and that the property be registered as property of a public trust under the Act. The Charity Commissioner declared that there was a public trust, that the Municipality was the trustee thereof, and that the property was transferred • in the Municipality for the benefit of members of the public interested G in the Samadhi of Nagabawa; but.he held that there was no such institution known as Johari Panch and that the property had not been used for the benefit of that community. In appeal, the District Court set aside the order of the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner appe11led to the High Court, which reversed the order of the District Court and restored the order of the Charity Commissioner. In appeal; this Court, .

¶11

¶12

B Held: The appeal must fail. (i) The property was entrusted to the Municipality. for providillll shelter to sndh.us, saints and religious mendicants. the purpose was religious and charitable within the meaning of S. 2 (13) of the

¶13

652

¶14

¶15

llIVNIC. OF TALODA V. CHARITY COMMR. (8/iah, J.)

¶16

653

¶17

Bombay Public Trusts Act. The trust was not limited to the build- A ings standing on the land; but extended to the entire property, Sadhus, religious mendicants and visitors to the Samadhi of Nagabawa are a section of the public. They have a common bond of veneration for the Samad/ti. The beneficiaries of the trust are an uncertain and fluctuating bod;• of persons forming a considerable section of the public and answering a particular description, and the fact that they belong to a religious faith ur a sect of persons of a certain relig·ious faith or a sect of persons of a certain religious B persuasion does not make any difference in the matter. [660 A-CJ. Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S. P. Sahi [1959J Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 583 followed.

¶18

(ii) After the transfer of the property was accepted by the Municipality for the purpose mentioned in the deed it was not open to the Municipality to divert the use of that property for its own purposes. There is nothing in Act 6 of 1873 or in the general law which prevents a Municipality from accepting a trust in favour of a section of the general public in respect of property transferred to it. Nor does the Act authorise a Municipality, after accepting a trust, to utilise it for its o .. •n purpose-in breach of the trust. [657 B-C; 658 CJ.

¶19

¶20

(iii) The contention, that once it was found that the property was not for the benefit of J ohari Panches. the application should· have D been dismissed, had no force. The proceedings were commenced under s. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and it was open to the Charity Commissioner to determine whether a public trust existed, and if the Charity Commissioner \vas satisfied that there existed a public trust, whatever may be the claim made by the applicants, the Charity Commissioner was bound to declare the existence of the public trust and register it. Under s.19 an enquiry may be started by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner on an application made under s.18 E or on an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion. [660 G. HJ.

¶21

(iv) The Sadhu who had unlawfully possessed himself of a part of the property in dispute was not sued in a representative capacity on behalf of the beneficiaries of the trust; he was sued as a trespasser. Therefore, the judgment did not operate as res judicata, and the Charity Con1n1issioncr \Vas not prevented fro1n determining in an appropriate proceed'ng whether the property was the property of a public trust of a religious or charitable. nature. [658 F].

¶22

¶23

(v) The argument, that the decision of the Survey Officer operates by virtue of s. 50-A of the Bombay District Municipal Act'. 1901 to destroy the rights of the public, is without substance. By sub-s. (2) of s. 50A, if the Collector had passed an order, a suit in a civil court shall be dismissed if the suit was brought to set aside the G order of the Collector or if -the relief claimed was inconsistent with such order. In the present case, 1he property was entered in the Survey recv;d as_ that of the Municipality, But the legal ownership of the Mumc1pahty was not challenged in the proceedings before the Charity Comm1ss10ncr. The proceeding under s. 19 of the Bom1>:1,v Public Trusts Act was for a declaration that the propertv was the property of a public trust and therefore was not a suit to set aside the order of the Collector. nor was it a suit in which the relief B claimed was inconsistent with the order of the Survey Officer r 658 G-659 B].

¶24

(vi) A person interested as the Oharity Commissioner is in the due administration of property, cannot be denied a right to appeal

¶25

(1968) l 8.C.B.

¶26

SUPRBJIB COURT REPORTS

¶27

¶28

A against an adverse decision in a proceeding to which he is a party, on the ground that he is pleading for acceptance of the view which he had declared as a quasi-judicial authority at an earlier stage of that proceeding. [661 E-F].

¶29

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1965.

¶30

B Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 26, 1962 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 250 of 1959 from Original Decree.

¶31

S. G. Patwardhan, R. R. Jhagirdar, V. G. Mudholkar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.

¶32

C R. H. Dhebar, S. S. Javali and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. I.

¶33

S. S. Shukla, for respondents Nos. 2(ii)-(vl.

¶34

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶35

Shah, J.-One Sambhusing applied under s. 19 of the Bom-

¶36

bay Public Trusts Act 29 of 1950 for a declaration that City Sur-

¶37

D vey Nos. 371 to 379 of Taloda were settled by one Dagadu Khushal in favour of the Municipality in 1883 for the benefit of the Johari Panch and for an order that the property be registered as property of a public trust under the Act. The Assist~nt Charity Commissioner who heard the petition by his order dated January 20, 1956, held that "there was no such institution known as Johari

¶38

E Panch", and that the property in disp)lte had not been used for the benefit of that community, but Dagadu Khushal had transferred the property to the Municipality for the benefit of members of the public interested in the Samadhi of Nagabawa. The Assistant Charity Commissioner declared that there was a public trust and City Survey Nos. 371 to 379 of Taloda Municipality were the property of the Trust and that the Municipality held it as trustee

¶39

F of that trust That order was confirmed in appeal by the Charity Commissioner. In appeal, the District Court set aside the order of the Charity Commissioner and held that by the deed of t~ans fer executed by Dagadu Khushal no trust was created, that in any event the trust was not a public trust and that the property in City Survey Nos. 371 to 379 was not the property of any such

¶40

G trust. In appeal under s. 72(4) of the Act, the High Court of Bombay reversed the order passed by the District Court and restored the order passed by the Charity Commissioner. The Municipality of Taloda has filed this petition with special leave.

¶41

A short history of the property may first be set out. Land

¶42

which now bears City Survey N<l'l. 371 to 379 originally be·

¶43

B longed to one Charandas who erected a 'Dharamshdla' thereon. On May 24, 1878, Charandas sold the land and the Dharamshala to Dagadu Khushal purporting to transfer the property absolutely to the vendee. On August 27, 1883, Dagadu Khushal executed a deed in favour of the Municipality of Taloda. the relevant clause

¶44

MUNIC OF TALOllA V, UllAIU1'Y COMMH, (f:!!ta/1, J,)

¶45

6li5-

¶46

of the deed (as translated in the judgment of the High Court) reads as follows :

¶47

"Having released all my rights, interest am! title in the property mentioned in the boundaries above, I am handing over to-day all that property in the possession of the Municipality for the purpose of sarwijanik kam (public purpose) as it has been utilised uµto date for shelter of Atit, Abhyagat, Sadhu, Sant etc. to be used in the same way as it has been used uptill now."

¶48

It was recited in the deed that in the property conveyed "there is a samadhi (grave) of Nagabawa''. The Municipality, pursuant to the deed, entered into the possession of the property. It appears that thereafter the Municipality made certain constructions which were used for its offices and for shops.

¶49

On September 21, 1936, the Municipality of Taloda filed a suit against one Baba Haridas Guru Shamdas Udasi for a declara· tion that the defendant had no right or interest over the land City Survey Nos. 371 to 379 and that the defendant had taken D unlawful possession thereof and for an order that the obstruction raised by the defendant be removed, and possession of the land be awarded to the Municipality. In this suit it was claimed by the Municipality that it was in possession of the land for more than , sixty years and the property was "utilised for municipal purposes and was enjoyed in all ways for necessary municipal requirements", but the defendant had made unauthorised construction thereon. Baba Haridas contended that the Municipality had no right to utilise the property for municipal purposes since it was transferred in trust for the residence of "sages, saints, guests. visitors and Others of the Nanak Sect", and the defendant being "a sage or saint of the Nanak Sect" had been residing in the property and was en· titled to do so. This suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge.

¶50

In 1950 survey proceedings were started in the town of Taloda and an enquiry regarding the title to the land was made. The Secretary of the Municipality admitted before the City Survey Officer that in Survey No. 379 there existed "a temple of the Johari men and the members of that community had the right to visit the temple at fixed times but they had no other right". Members of the Johari Panch claimed that they had entrusted their temple to the Municipality for administering it for the community, but the "compound" belonged to them ind that the Municipality was merely a trustee thereof. The City Survey Officer declared the Municipality to be the owner of the property in question and further declared that the Municipality was not a trustee for the Johari Panch. Sambhusing then submitted the application out of B which this appeal has arisen.

1!1

~e ~Ugh Court has held that the Municipality held at all matenal times the property as a trustee of a public trust. This

¶57

SUPBEll~~COURT REPoR'.1'9

¶58

600

¶59

[1968] 1 s.c.11.

¶60

A finding is challenged before us by the Municipality. The first question which falls to be considered is whether the Municipality holds the property or any part thereof as a trustee. Dagadu Khushal claiming to be the owner of the property by purchase from Charandas transferred it to the Municipality for public purpose i.e. to be utilised for giving shelter to "Sadhus, saints and religious

¶61

B mendicants" in the same manner in which it had been utilised upto the date of transfer. We will assume that Dagadu Khushal could have, when he was the owner, stopped the user of the property for the benefit of "Sad/ms, saints and religious mendicants". But after the transfer of the property was accepted by the Municipality for the purposes mentioned in the deed, it was not open to the Municipality to divert the use of that property for its own

¶62

C purposes. Counsel for the Municipality urged that the Municipality is in a sense a trustee for the residents of the town of Taloda in respect of all the property vested in it by operation of the Act constituting it, anp upon that trust another trust which restricts

¶63

. the use of the property for the benefit of a limited class of persons cannot be super-imposed. The Municipality was governed by '\ct

¶64

D VI of 1873 at the date of the settlement. Section 17 of that Act prov:cled:

¶65

"All property of the nature hereinafter specified shall be vested in and belong to the Municipality, and shall, together with all other property, of what nature or kind soever, which may become vested in the. Munici- E pality, be under their direction, management, and control, and shall be held and applied by them as trustees for the purposes of this Act; that is to say: -

¶66

¶67

¶68

(a) All public town walls gates. markets, slaugliterhouses, manure and nightsoil depots and public buildings of every description not specially reserved by Government.

¶69

(b) All public streams, tanks, reservoirs, cisterns, wells, springs aqueducts. conduits, tunnels, pipes, pumps, and other water-works, and all bridges buildings, engines, works, materials, and things connected therewith or appertaining thereto, and also any adjacent land (not being private property) appertaining to any public tank or well.

¶70

(c) All public sewers and drains, and all sewers, drains, tunnels, culverts, gutlers and watercourses in, alongside, or under any street, and all works materials

¶71

B and things appertaining thereto, as also all dust, dirt. dung, ashes, refuse, animal matter or filth, or rubbish o~ any kind collected by the Municipality from the streets, houses, privies, sewers, cess-pools, or elsewhere.

¶72

ltu!hc. OF TALOD! ~.)tlAR!'l'Y COl4MR. (Sl1a11, J.)

¶73

657

¶74

Id) All public lamps, lamp posts, and apparatus connected therewith, or appertaining thereto.

¶75

¶76

(e) AU land transferred to them by Government, or by gift, or otherwise for local public purposes.

¶77

(f) All public streets, and spaces, and the pavements, stones, and other materials thereof, and also an trees, erections, materi11ls, implements, a•nd things provided for such streets and spaces."

¶78

¶79

Property belonging to a Municipality governed by the Act must undoubtedly be held under its direction, management and control and must be applied by it as a trustee, subject to the provisions and for the purposes of the Act. But there is nothing in the Act or c in the general law which prevents a Municipality from accepting a trust in favour of a section of the general public in respect of property transferred to it, or authorises the Municipality after accept· ing a trust to utilise it for its own purposes in breach of the trust.

¶80

It was then urged by counsel for the Municipality that by the decree passed in the suit filed against Baba Haridas, the right of the D members of the Johari community to the property in dispute was negatived and the same right cannot, because of the rule of res judicata. be re·agitated in these proceedings. In that argument, in our judgment, there is no substance. The only dispute in suit No. SH) of 1936 of the Court of the Second Class Sub-Judge Nandurbar, was about the right of the Municipality to call upon Baba Haridas to vacate and deliver possession of the property which was in his B occupation. It is true that the defendant Baba Haridas had contended that the property was the property reserved for "Sadhus, saints and religious mendicants" and he .as a Sadhu was entitled to reside therein. But Baba Haridas was not sued in a representative capacity on behalf of the beneficiaries of the trust created in 1883; he was used as a trespasser. The judgment of the civil court does not 1 operate to prevent the Assistant Charity Commi~oner from deter· mining in an appropriate proceeding whether the property was the property of a public trust of a religious or charitable nature.

¶81

The argument of counsel for the Municipality that the decision of the City Survey Officer operates, by virtue of s.50.A of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, to destroy the rights of the public, G is also without substance. Sub-section (I) of s. SO.A of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, authorises the City Survey Officer, in proceedings for survey of lands (other than land used for agriculture) in a Municipal District to determine the claim between the Municipality and other persons after formal enquiry of which due notice has been given. By sub-s. (2) any suit instituted in any civil court after the expiration of one year from the date of any order passed by the Collector, fJf if an appeal has been made B against such order within the period of limitation, shall be dismiss. Cid· if the suit is brought to set aside such order, or if the relief

¶82

' .

¶83

[1968] 1 8.0JI.

¶84

SUl'llSllA COURT lllll'OBTS

¶85

¶86

A claimed is inconsistent with such order, provided that the plaintiff has had due notice of such order. The property undoubtedly is entered in the City Survey record as private property of the Taloda Municipality. But the legal ownership of the Municipality is not challenged in the proceedings before ·the Assistant· Charity Commissioner. It is merely contended in this proceeding under s. 19 B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act that the property is held by the Municipality subject to a public trust. The proceeding under s. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act for a declaration that the property is the property of a public trust is not a suit to set aside the order of the Collector, nor is it a suit in which the relief claimed· is inconsistent with the order of the City Survey Officer.

¶87

0 The learned Assistant Judge held that the beneficiaries referred in Ext. 14 as "Sadhus, saints and religious mendicants" do not fOCUI the public or a section thereof, and on that account also the use of the property by them was not· an object of general public utility. The bounty of the settler, observed the learned Judge, must be directed towards the public as a whole or a section of the public: if the object of his bounty is neither the public nor a section of D the public, "but merely a conglomeration of men who constitute a mere group and the nexus which ties them is not a nexus which constitutes them a section of the public, the trust is not for advancement of any object of general public utility". We are unable to agree with that view. Section 9 of the Bombay Public T1usts Act provides :

¶88

"For the purposes of this Act, a charitable purpose include&-

¶89

(!) relief of poverty or distress,

¶90

(2) education,

¶91

(3) medical relief, and

¶92

(4) the advancement of any other object of general public

¶93

, utility,

¶94

but does not include a purpose which relates-

¶95

(a) exclusively to sports, or

¶96

(b) exclusively to religious teaching or worship." Section 10 of the Act provides :

¶97

"Notwithstanding any law, custom or usage, a public trust shall not be void, only on the ground that the persons or objects for te benefit of whm or which it 1s- created are unascertamed or unascertamable.

¶98

Explanation- "

¶99

B The expression "public trust" is defined in s. 2(13) as meaning an express or constructive trust for either a public, religious or charitable purpose, or both and includes a temple, a math, a wakf, a dharmada or any other religious or charitable purpose or for both

¶100

¶101

and registered under iii~ Sodeiies Registration Act, 1860. A trust A for either a religious or charitable purpose or for both by the express words of the definitidn is a public trust. We are unable to agree with the learned Assistant Judge that Sad/ms, religious mendicants and visitors to the sm1u1dhi of Nagabawa are not a section of the public. They have a common bond of veneration for the samaclhi. The beneficiaries of the trust arc an uncertain B and fluctuating body of persons forming a considerable section of the public and answering a particuhlr description, and the fact that they belong to a religious faith or a sect of persons of a certain religious persuasion does not make any difference fo. the matter: Mahant Rum Saroop Dasji v. S. P. Sahi('). The property is entrusted to the Municipality for providing shelter to "sad/ms, saints and religious mendicants". the purpose, in our judgment, is C religious and charitable within the meaning of s. 2(13), of the Act.

¶102

The pica that Dagadu Khushal had entrusted the property to the Municipality only for maintaining a Dh({ramshala for the benefit of persons visiting the samaclhi of Guru Nagabawa and the trust was limited only to the building of the Dlwrmm/111/11 has also no force. The terms of Ext. 14 arc clear·. The trust was not limited D to the b1tildings standing on the land. it extended to the entke property.

¶103

Two proced urul objections which were raised· by counsel for the Municipality remain to be considered. It was urged that since Sambhusing applied for a declaration that the purpose of the trust was to give shelter to .mclh11.1. saints and religious mendicants E during their sojourn in Taloda and to maintain and look after Nagabawa's •amcuihi. and for an order that all the lands adjoining the .m11111c//1i of Nag11b11wa i.<'. the Dluwamsltale1. the whole building in which there was the Municipal office, m1y be given into the possession of the Johari Pcmchas. it was not ·open .to the Assistant Charity Cl'mmissioner to g.ivc a linding that there existed a F publk trust for the bcnclil of persons interested in the .wu11culhi. It was contended that once it was found thwt the property was not for the nfit of .t_hyJohari Panchas, the application should have been d1sm1ssed. We ure unable to a2ree wnh that contention. The pwcecdings were commenc•'ti under s. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. mid it wa open to the Asistant Charity ComG missioner to determine whether a public trust existed. and if the Assistant Charity Commissioner was si1tisficd that there existed a public trust. whatcwr may be the claim made by the applicants. the Assistant Charity Commissioner was bound to declare the existence of the public trust and register it. Under s. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act an inquiry may be started by the Deputy or Asistant Charity Commissioner either on an applicaB lion made under s. 18 or on an application made by any rerson ( ') [1959] Suppl. (') S.C.R. 583. J,;l'(l!)7Af'J ~l

[1968} 1 S.C.11.,

660

SlJPllJl>lE CUU!l1' Rlli'Ul'fS

¶108

A having . interest in a public trust or on his own motion. The proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner was not a proceeding inter partes, and Sambhusing was not claiming any per6onal relief, He was entitled to. set in motion an enquiry into the nature of the trust as a person claiming !o be interested in the public trust. If the Assistant Charity Commissioner found that a

¶109

B public trust existed, he could make an appropriate declaration and consequential orders consistent with his findings.

¶110

It was finally urged that against the finding of the District

¶111

Court that there was no public trust, and if there was a public trust the beneficiaries were not the members of the public, the Charity Commissioner could not appeal to the High Court, for, it

¶112

c was said, the Charity Commissioner is constltuted by the Act a judicial authority. and he cannot take up in the proceeding a contentious attitude. We are unable to accept that contention also. The powers of the Charity Ccmmissioner under the Act are found in s. 3. That Officer is directed to exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions as are conferred by or under the provisions of the Act; and shall, subject to such general or special orders

¶113

D as the State Government may pass, superintend the administration and carry out the.provisions of the Act throughout the state. If an ldverse decision is arrived at by the Court under s. 72 and if he is denied the right to appeal lo the High Court, it would be difficult for' him. if he is of the view that the property is the property of the public trust and if the District Court rules otherwise, to

¶114

E carry out the provisions of the Act. The Charity Commissioner was made a party to the appeal, and he was C!Jtitled to suppcrt his order before the District Court. A person interested, as the Charity Commissioner is in the due administration of property, cannot be denied a right to appeal against an adverse decision in a proceeding to which he is a party, on the ground that he is pleading for

¶115

r acceptance of the view which he had declared as a quasi-judicial authority at an earlier stage of that proceeding.

¶116

l'he appeal fails and is dismissed with costs in favour of the Charity Commissioner.

¶117

Y.P.

¶118

Appeal dismissed.

Municipality of Taloda v. the Charity Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Municipality of Taloda v. the Charity Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahant Ramswarup Guru Chhote Balakdas versus Motiram Khandu Patil & Ors.

Lakshmi Narain Agarwal versus State Transport Authority, U.P. & Anr.

Vidya Vati versus the State of Punjab & Ors.

Banarsi Das Ahluwalia versus the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Delhi

Shrimant Sardar Chandrojirao Angre versus State of Madhya Pradesh

Sita Ram versus Radhabai and Ors.