2011 (10) TMI 740 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether T. Thomas Educational Trust is a Minority Educational Trust.
2. Whether the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was justified in framing a scheme for the administration of the trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the management and administration of the trust.
4. Whether the trust is a public charitable trust.
5. Whether the appointment of trustees and the framing of the scheme were appropriate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Minority Educational Trust:
The primary issue was whether T. Thomas Educational Trust, Perambur, Chennai, qualifies as a Minority Educational Trust. The trust was established by T. Thomas, a Christian, who founded St. Mary's School and later executed a deed of declaration for the T. Thomas Educational Trust. The trust deed allowed for accepting donations from any person or institution and stated that the income should be used for the trust's purposes, including financial assistance to poor and deserving students irrespective of caste, creed, or religion. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court found that the trust was a public charitable trust and not a minority institution, a view confirmed by a bench of three judges of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the trust's objectives and the founder's declaration did not indicate it was intended for the benefit of a minority community.

2. Framing of Scheme under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court framed a scheme for the administration of the trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court found it necessary to frame an appropriate scheme due to allegations of financial mismanagement and the expansion of the trust's activities. The High Court's decision to frame a scheme was affirmed by the Supreme Court, which emphasized that the trust was a secular public charitable trust and not a minority institution. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's scheme as being in the interest of the trust.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The High Court's jurisdiction to interfere with the management and administration of the trust was challenged. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the trust was a public charitable trust, thereby falling within the purview of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, noting that the High Court had the authority to frame a scheme for the trust's administration due to the allegations of mismanagement and the need for proper governance.

4. Public Charitable Trust:
The issue of whether the trust is a public charitable trust was central to the case. The learned single Judge, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, and the Supreme Court all found that the trust was a public charitable trust. The trust deed's provisions, including the acceptance of donations from any source and the use of income for the benefit of students irrespective of caste, creed, or religion, supported this conclusion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trust's secular and public nature was evident from its objectives and activities.

5. Appointment of Trustees and Framing of Scheme:
The appropriateness of the appointment of trustees and the framing of the scheme was another significant issue. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court appointed a Board of Trustees, including a retired Judge and a retired IAS officer, to ensure proper administration. The Supreme Court upheld these appointments, noting that the trust's administration must be secular and in line with its public charitable nature. The Court rejected the appellant's objections based on the religion of the appointed trustees, emphasizing that the trust's management should not be restricted to any particular religious community.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's judgment and order, affirming that T. Thomas Educational Trust is a secular public charitable trust and not a minority institution. The High Court's framing of a scheme for the trust's administration under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was deemed appropriate and necessary for the trust's proper governance. The Court also found no merit in the allegations of mismanagement against the appointed trustees.