1959 (9) TMI 55 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the temple as a public trust.
2. Management and mismanagement of the temple's property.
3. Liability of the defendant for interest on misappropriated funds.
4. Application of the rule of Damdupat.
5. Proper calculation of due amounts and interest.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Temple as a Public Trust:
The plaintiffs contended that the 'Shri Chandraprabhu Khandelwal Jain Temple' at Dhulia was a public trust and that all members of the Khandelwal Jain Community were interested in it. The defendant No. 1's father managed the temple for over 40 years, and after his death in 1949, defendant No. 1 continued managing it. The plaintiffs sought registration of the trust under the Bombay Act No. XXV of 1935, which was eventually granted, affirming the temple as a public trust with an income exceeding Rs. 1,000.

2. Management and Mismanagement of the Temple's Property:
The defendant No. 1 challenged the plaintiffs' statements regarding the temple's properties and claimed that proper accounts were maintained. However, the plaintiffs alleged that the funds of the temple were used by the defendant and his father in their business. The court found discrepancies in the account books and noted that the defendant failed to produce complete records, leading to an inference that the temple's funds were indeed used for personal business.

3. Liability of the Defendant for Interest on Misappropriated Funds:
The plaintiffs argued that the defendant should be charged compound interest for using the temple's funds in their business. The court referenced legal precedents and principles, determining that the defendant, akin to a trustee, was liable for compound interest on the misappropriated funds. The court cited the Indian Trusts Act and English Law principles, which hold trustees accountable for interest on funds used improperly.

4. Application of the Rule of Damdupat:
The defendant contended that under the rule of Damdupat, interest exceeding the principal amount could not be claimed. The court examined the nature of the liability of a trustee, concluding that it was not a simple contractual debt but a breach of trust. Therefore, the rule of Damdupat, which applies to contractual debts, was deemed inapplicable in this case.

5. Proper Calculation of Due Amounts and Interest:
The court found that the accounts were not correctly taken, as the Commissioner calculated simple interest at 6% instead of compound interest. Additionally, a sum of Rs. 7,000 produced by the defendant in 1953 was not considered in the interest calculation. The court ordered a reassessment of the amount due to the temple, considering compound interest with yearly rests and including the Rs. 7,000.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the decree regarding the amount due to the temple and remanded the case for a fresh determination of the amount, emphasizing the need for compound interest calculation. The rest of the decree was confirmed, and the defendant No. 1's resignation from the managing committee was noted. The court directed that the costs of the appeal be borne by the estate, and the cross-objections were dismissed with costs credited to the trust.