1978 (4) TMI 239 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Endowment for the Matam and Samadhi.
2. Alienation of Trust Properties.
3. Removal of Trustee and Accounting.
4. Framing of a Scheme for Trust Administration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Endowment for the Matam and Samadhi:
The core issue revolves around the validity of the endowment under the B Schedule properties, specifically whether the endowment for the Matam and the Samadhi is legally valid. The trial court found that the Samadhi (tomb) and the Matam (monastery) were so closely intertwined that they could not be separated, rendering the endowment invalid. The High Court disagreed, holding that the Matam and the Samadhi were distinct, with the endowment for the Matam being valid and the endowment for the Samadhi invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Samadhi was a tomb of an ancestor and thus invalid in law. However, it held that the properties vested in the Matam with a charge for the expenses of the Puja at the Samadhi, which is unsustainable in law.

2. Alienation of Trust Properties:
Both the trial court and the High Court found that the trust properties were improperly alienated. The High Court invalidated the alienations of items 4, 7, 8, and 15 of the B Schedule properties. The Supreme Court upheld these findings, affirming that the alienations were not valid or binding on the trust.

3. Removal of Trustee and Accounting:
The trial court ordered the removal of the first defendant from trusteeship and directed him to render accounts for the entire period of his management. The High Court modified this, limiting the accounting to five years prior to the date of the suit. The Supreme Court upheld the removal of the trustee and the five-year accounting period, noting that the first defendant was guilty of breach of trust.

4. Framing of a Scheme for Trust Administration:
The High Court directed the framing of a scheme for the administration of the two trusts, with a Board of Trustees consisting of three members: two respectable residents of the village and one member from the family of the donors. The Supreme Court agreed with this direction, noting that the prohibition against the first defendant being a trustee had expired, and his claim to be appointed as one of the trustees could be considered by the Subordinate Judge. The Supreme Court also directed that the income from the properties should be used in conformity with the directions in the trust deed, with surplus income utilized for feeding poor school-going children in the village, applying the Cy-pres doctrine due to changed circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, affirming the High Court's findings on the invalidity of the Samadhi endowment and the improper alienation of trust properties. It upheld the removal of the first defendant as trustee and the limited accounting period. The Court also agreed with the High Court's direction to frame a scheme for trust administration, with modifications to utilize surplus income for charitable purposes in line with the donors' intentions.