9911796707
TMI Blog1929 (11) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld to be binding on the other mutts because it was passed at a general meeting, ft is sought to bring this within Rule 14 of the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations of the Sabha which I have set out giving the Council power to frame such bye-laws not inconsistent with the rules and regulations as it may consider necessary for the conduct, maintenance, and upkeep of the Sabha and a like power to alter, modify or rescind any such bye-laws so long as such bye-laws are passed at the annual (general meeting of the Sabha. If the matter related merely to the internal management without in anyway affecting the fundamental basis on which the Sabha was Starts fed, the majority decision would bind the minority, he wever galling it may be; but it seems to me that in a case like the present, this resolution is fundamentally opposed the constitution of the Sabha whose very existence depends upon the co operation of the disciples of like various mutts on a basis of equality. I have already shown that this was the dominant policy of the Sabha from its foundation. And the events of 1911 and 1912 have shown he w vital it is aim $he interests of the Sabha that no distinction shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Court to deny justice to the majority. 6. It is clear that it is not open to the majority to alter the fundamental principles upon which the association is founded. I may refer to Milligan v. Mitchell (1837) 3 My. Cr. 72 : 40 E.R. 852 : 7 L.J. (N.S.) Ch. 37 : 1 Jur. 888 : 45 R.R. 218 and Free Church of Scotland (General Assembly of) v. Overtoun (Lord) Macalister v. Young (1904) A.C. 515 : 91 L.T. 394 7. In Milligan v. Mitchell (1837) 3 My. Cr. 72 : 40 E.R. 852 : 7 L.J. (N.S.) Ch. 37 : 1 Jur. 888 : 45 R.R. 218 it was held that it was not competent to the members of the association to alter the fundamental principles upon which the association was formed and destroy the trusts upon which the property was held, but only to altering the laws or making new laws, so far as might be consistent with such principles and trusts. 8. In that case, a chapel was erected and dedicated exclusively as a place of worship for Presbyterians who conformed to the discipline and doctrines of the National Church of Scotland. Then there was a resolution passed subsequently, whereby other preachers were allowed to preach and the question was he w far the resolution passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be granted. I think 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 he nours or to give priority to the head of any one mutt ever the rest in the distribution of thirtham or any he nour. 13. His Lordship held that the articles and rules of the association provided sufficient safeguards for its proper working in the future, and gave certain directions for the conduct of the meetings of the Sabha in future, and concluded as follows. I would reverse the decree of the lower Court and pass a decree in the terms above stated. The Sabha (represented by its committee) and 12th respondent, the Guru of the Uttarathi Mutt, will pay the appellants' costs both here and in the lower Court. 14. We fix the Vakils' fee in this Court at ₹ 500 15. The decree I pass disposes of the Memorandum of objections. No costs. Pakenham Walsh, J. 16. After dealing with the facts: I he ld that the defendants have failed to prove that there was any custom by which the Uttarathi Mutt received first thirtham and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held that, because the tenets of the latter body on the question of the Establishment principle and the West minister Confession were not identical with those under which the Free Church held the property in dispute, the minority which adhered to the original view of the Free Church were entitled to the property--vide remarks at pages 613, 645 and 648 Page of (1904) A.C.-[Ed.]. In such a case one dissentient is enough Attorney-General v. Anderson (1888) 57 L.J. Ch. 543 : 58 L.T. 726 : 36 W.R. 714 and there is no power to alter the central conditions of the society--vide Milligan v. Mitchell (1837) 3 My. Cr. 72 : 40 E.R. 852 : 7 L.J. (N.S.) Ch. 37 : 1 Jur. 888 : 45 R.R. unless there is such power specially reserved, which must be proved. Of the cases quoted on the other side, there is only one that appears to be relevant and the remark there is obiter. This is the remark in Cooper v. Gordon (1869) 8 Eq. 249 at p. 258 : 38 L.J. Ch. 489 : 20 L.T. 732 : 17 W.R. 908. In that case, by the trust deeds of a congregation of independents, a chapel, a he use and other property were vested in trustees for the use of the congregation, and to permit the minister for the time being to occu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im, in the former case, that he is, and in the latter case that he is not of our religion. We do not compel him to he ld our faith; we but ask him to inform us, by certain acts, whether he does he ld it or does not; and we ask this, only if he claims to be enrolled as one of our body, and to be in religious communion with us. In the absence of such a test, our Establishment would not be a rock, contented into solidity by harmonious uniformity of opinion, it would be a mere incongruous (heap of, as it were, grains of sand, thrown together without being united, each of these intellectual and isolated grains differing from every other, and the whole forming a but nominally united while really unconnected mass; fraught with nothing but internal dissimilitude, and mutual and reciprocal contradiction and dissension. 20. Raghunath Damodhar v. Janardhan Gopal 15 B. 599 and Lalji Shamji v. Walji Warhaman 19 B. 507 are cases relating to caste decisions where it was held that the decision was in the power of the majority of the caste for their own comfort and convenience and not a matter in which the Court could interfere; Hasan Rata Sahib v. Hasan Ali Sahib 38 Ind. Cas. 528 : 40 M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
