1969 (10) TMI 76 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Existence and validity of a trust.
2. Nature of possession of Mani Ram and his successors.
3. Validity of the dedication in favor of Hazrat Ali.
4. Dominant object of the trust and its recognition under Hindu law.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Existence and Validity of a Trust:
The principal question was whether there was a valid trust and the nature of possession of Mani Ram and his successors. The Trial Court held that Mani Ram and his successors possessed the property as managers or trustees. The High Court concurred, stating that Mani Ram had dedicated the property, and those who succeeded him held it as trustees or managers. The High Court also noted that the dedication was in favor of the idols of Shri Mahadeoji and Mahabirji. The Supreme Court, however, questioned whether the trust created by Mani Ram was valid under Hindu law as a religious and/or charitable trust.

2. Nature of Possession of Mani Ram and His Successors:
The Trial Court found that the possession of the property by Mani Ram and his successors was that of managers or trustees. This view was upheld by the High Court, which noted that the property was held as endowed property managed by trustees or managers. The Supreme Court agreed that the property was managed as a trust but questioned the validity of the trust under Hindu law.

3. Validity of the Dedication in Favor of Hazrat Ali:
The Trial Court held that Mani Ram was not competent to make a dedication in favor of Hazrat Ali, but the dedication was not solely in favor of Hazrat Ali. The High Court noted that the dedication could be treated as a trust for the benefit of Mahadeoji and Mahabirji. The Supreme Court found that the trust was not solely for Hazrat Ali but also included the idols of Mahadeoji and Mahabirji to attract wrestlers from both Hindu and Muslim communities.

4. Dominant Object of the Trust and its Recognition under Hindu Law:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the dominant object of the dedication was the Akhara, with the idols and the tasweer installed to attract wrestlers from both communities. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Saraswathi Ammal v. Rajagopal Ammal, which state that the validity of a trust must be determined based on Hindu law and notions. The Court found no evidence that the promotion of wrestling was recognized as a charitable trust under Hindu law. The Court concluded that the dominant intention of the settlor was to set up and maintain an Akhara, and the dedication was not for a religious or charitable purpose as recognized by Hindu law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the High Court. The Court found that the trust created by Mani Ram was not for a religious or charitable purpose recognized by Hindu law. Consequently, the dedication in question was not valid under Hindu law. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and the Collector was given liberty to recover the Court fees payable in the plaint from the next friend of the plaintiffs.