1935 (3) TMI 20 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Radha Swami Trust.
2. Applicability of the Charitable Religious Trusts Act, 1920.
3. Interest of defendants in the alleged trust and properties.
4. Doctrines and tenets of the Radha Swami religion.
5. Position and authority of the Sant Sat Guru.
6. Creation and administration of the alleged trust.
7. Nature of the trust properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Radha Swami Trust:
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory decree stating that the so-called Radha Swami Trust is not a legal and valid trust. They argued that the trust was neither created nor existing for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. The High Court and the Subordinate Judge had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, affirming the existence of the trust. However, the Privy Council found that the followers of the faith, when making their gifts to the Sant Sat Guru, did not intend to create a trust within the meaning of the Act. The Council concluded that the properties were not treated as private by the Gurus but were set apart as properties belonging to the Sat Sang and held in trust for the furtherance of its objects.

2. Applicability of the Charitable Religious Trusts Act, 1920:
The plaintiffs contended that the provisions of Act 14 of 1920 did not apply to the alleged trust. The High Court had initially held that the properties were subject to a trust for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. However, the Privy Council disagreed, stating that the essential and unalterable doctrines of the faith, the supremacy, and control of the Sant Sat Guru over the offerings, and the nature of the properties acquired, indicated that it was never intended to create such a trust as contemplated by the Act.

3. Interest of Defendants in the Alleged Trust and Properties:
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had no interest in the alleged trust or the properties administered by it. The Privy Council found that the defendants had not filed any case in reply to the plaintiffs' appeal, and thus, their arguments were not considered. The Council concluded that the properties were not intended to be held in trust for the benefit of the followers, thereby negating the defendants' interest in the trust.

4. Doctrines and Tenets of the Radha Swami Religion:
The case involved the doctrines, tenets, and principles of the Radha Swami religion. The faith was founded in 1861 by Swami Shiv Dayal, and its object is to attain true and perfect salvation. The teachings and doctrines emphasize the service to the Sant Sat Guru, who is considered the Supreme Being or His representative. The Privy Council noted that the teachings and doctrines were accepted by both parties as supreme and uncontrollable mandates.

5. Position and Authority of the Sant Sat Guru:
The plaintiffs held that the Sant Sat Guru is the incarnation of the Supreme Being in human form, while the defendants considered him as the representative of and in communion with the Supreme Being. The Privy Council did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this issue, as the appeal was decided on other grounds. The Council emphasized the complete and absolute submission of the followers to the Sant Sat Guru and his control over the offerings.

6. Creation and Administration of the Alleged Trust:
The Privy Council examined the creation and administration of the alleged trust. It found that the constitutional powers of the Central Council and the provisions of the so-called trust deed were consistent with a desire to obtain assistance in managing the property but not to create a legal trust. The Council concluded that the arrangement facilitated property management during the Sant Sat Guru's lifetime and addressed succession issues but did not indicate an intention to create a trust as per Act 14 of 1920.

7. Nature of the Trust Properties:
The properties in question were acquired through offerings made to the Sant Sat Guru. The Privy Council noted that the properties were not treated as private but were intended for the advancement of the faith. However, the Council found that the alleged trust's activities, such as carrying on a banking business and proposing a factory, were inconsistent with a trust for a public purpose of a religious or charitable nature.

Conclusion:
The Privy Council allowed the appeal, set aside the decrees of the Courts in India, and declared that the Radha Swami Trust is not a legal and valid trust, nor one to which the provisions of Act 14 of 1920 apply. The defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the plaintiffs in both Courts in India and of the appeal.