1929 (11) TMI 6 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the resolution giving precedence to the Uttarathi Mutt.
2. Fundamental principles of the association.
3. Maintainability of the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.
4. Relief to be granted to the plaintiffs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the resolution giving precedence to the Uttarathi Mutt:
The court examined whether the resolution of 1912, which gave precedence to the Uttarathi Mutt, was binding on all mutts. The resolution was challenged on the grounds that it was fundamentally opposed to the constitution of the Sabha, which was founded on the principle of equality among the disciples of various mutts. The court held that "the resolution is fundamentally opposed to the constitution of the Sabha whose very existence depends upon the cooperation of the disciples of various mutts on a basis of equality." It was determined that the majority decision could not override the claims of the minority for equal treatment, especially when it altered the fundamental basis of the Sabha.

2. Fundamental principles of the association:
The court discussed the fundamental principles upon which the association was founded, referencing several precedents. It was emphasized that the majority could not alter these principles. The judgment cited cases like Milligan v. Mitchell and Free Church of Scotland v. Overtoun, reinforcing that any alteration to the fundamental principles or trusts upon which the property was held was invalid. The court concluded that "the giving of precedence in the matter of thirtham will be a fundamental alteration of the principles on which the Sabha was founded and is not a matter of mere internal management."

3. Maintainability of the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The court addressed the preliminary issue of whether the suit was maintainable under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was decided in favor of the plaintiffs, as the decision of the Subordinate Judge on this matter was not seriously disputed. The court agreed with the Subordinate Judge's preliminary judgment, affirming that the suit was maintainable.

4. Relief to be granted to the plaintiffs:
The court declared that it was not competent for the majority of the members to make any distinction between the mutts regarding thirtham or any other honors. The judgment stated, "The plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that it is not competent to the majority of the members to make any distinction between the mutts as regards thirtham or any other honors or to give priority to the head of any one mutt over the rest in the distribution of thirtham or any honor." The court provided specific directions for the future conduct of the Sabha's meetings and reversed the decree of the lower court, passing a decree in favor of the plaintiffs. The Sabha and the 12th respondent, the Guru of the Uttarathi Mutt, were ordered to pay the appellants' costs.

Separate Judgment by Pakenham Walsh, J.:
Pakenham Walsh, J. concurred with the findings and reasoning of the primary judgment, adding that the defendants failed to prove any custom of precedence for the Uttarathi Mutt. He emphasized that even if such a practice existed, it could not be legally recognized as it would be subversive to the society's objects of equality. He also addressed the argument that the Sabha could act as it pleased, clarifying that charitable corporations are trustees of their property and subject to the court's jurisdiction. He reiterated that the majority could not alter the fundamental purposes and principles of the association unless such power was explicitly reserved. He concluded by agreeing with the directions proposed for the conduct of meetings and the reversal of the lower court's decree.

Conclusion:
The court held that the resolution giving precedence to the Uttarathi Mutt was invalid as it contravened the fundamental principles of the Sabha. The suit was maintainable under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the plaintiffs were granted relief in the form of a declaration ensuring equal treatment of all mutts. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the foundational principles of the association and provided directions for its future governance.