9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a suit for a declaration lies. 2. Whether the plaintiff managing committee has locus standi to maintain the suit and has duly authorized Kharak Singh and Ram Singh to institute the suit. 3. Whether the plaintiff committee is not a duly registered body. 4. Whether the management for the school and its properties became vested in the plaintiff committee as trustees. 5. What is the nature and the extent of the properties up to the date of the new trust, dated November 20, 1925. 6. Whether the trust, if any, created in favor of the plaintiffs was invalid because possession had not been transferred to them. 7. Whether on November 26, 1925, the defendant was still competent to deal with this property and create a new trust in favor of the defendants in connection therewith. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether a suit for a declaration lies: The Subordinate Judge held that a suit for declaration did not lie because the plaintiff was neither in possession nor in control of the management of the school. The proper form of the suit would have been one for possession and management of the school. The High Court reversed this, stating that the defendants were not in possession or in a position to deliver possession of the properties, and therefore, no further relief was available to the plaintiffs against the defendants. The judgment agrees with the High Court's view, adding that where it is not open to the plaintiff to pray for possession also as against the defendant, an injunction is further relief within the meaning of the proviso. 2. Whether the plaintiff managing committee has locus standi to maintain the suit and has duly authorized Kharak Singh and Ram Singh to institute the suit: The Subordinate Judge held that the committee was not duly registered, placing the burden of proving the seven signatures to the original memorandum on the plaintiffs. The High Court reversed this finding, holding that the defendants had failed to disprove the presumption arising on the certificate of the Registrar dated December 7, 1919. The judgment supports the High Court's view, stating that the association was duly registered and had locus standi to maintain the suit. Regarding the authorization of Kharak Singh and Ram Singh, the minute of the meeting dated July 31, 1926, constituted a due authority. The appellants' argument about the lack of notice was dismissed as the proof of the minute of the meeting was deemed sufficient. 3. Whether the plaintiff committee is not a duly registered body: The Subordinate Judge's decision was vitiated by his failure to give effect to Section 19 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The High Court held that the defendants had failed to disprove the presumption arising on the certificate of the Registrar dated December 7, 1919. The judgment agrees with the High Court, stating that the association was duly registered. 4. Whether the management for the school and its properties became vested in the plaintiff committee as trustees: The High Court stated that for the foundation of a charitable endowment by a Hindu, no writing is required, and the donor should divest himself of the property. The judgment agrees with this, adding that the subsequent acts and conduct of the donor are irrelevant once the property is divested. Rule 4 of the rules and regulations, along with Sections 5 and 16 of the Act of 1860, was sufficient to vest the buildings of the school and the attached lands in the committee. The judgment also states that any subsequent alteration of these buildings or additions to them must be held to have accrued to the original dedication. 5. What is the nature and the extent of the properties up to the date of the new trust, dated November 20, 1925: The High Court's decree declared that the Indaura High School buildings and the lands attached to them, the sum of Rs. 95,000, war bonds for Rs. 5,000, and the mortgagee's rights under a deed of mortgage dated June 2, 1920, are property held in trust for the benefit of the school. The judgment supports this declaration. 6. Whether the trust, if any, created in favor of the plaintiffs was invalid because possession had not been transferred to them: The High Court held that the school buildings and attached lands were irrevocably dedicated by Mallah Singh at the time of the registration of the association. The judgment agrees, stating that the fixed deposit of Rs. 95,000 and the Rs. 5,000 of war bonds were dedicated and divested in favor of the committee. The mortgage deed dated June 2, 1920, also constituted a clear dedication of the mortgagees' rights to the school. 7. Whether on November 26, 1925, the defendant was still competent to deal with this property and create a new trust in favor of the defendants in connection therewith: This issue was rendered unnecessary to consider separately as the previous issues addressed the core matters related to the property and the trust. Conclusion: The appeal fails, and the decree of the High Court is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
|
