DR. T. VARGHESE GEORGE versus KORA K. GEORGE & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1070 · Decided: 13-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1070 
DR. T. VARGHESE GEORGE 
v. 
KORA K. GEORGE & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6786 of 2003) 
OCTOBER 13, 2011 
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: 
c 
s. 92(1)(g) - Public charities - Trust created for public 
purpose of a charitable nature i.e. running the school -
Allegations of mis-management - Suit for settling a scheme 
- Maintainability of - Held: As per s. 92, two or more persons 
having interest in the Trust may institute such a suit where 
0 such persons make out a case of breach of any Trust created 
for public purpose - One of the purpose set out in sub-s. (1 )(g) 
is settling a scheme - Out of the three persons who filed the 
suit one was a member of the Board of Trustees, the other 
was the person who had raised funds for buying land for the 
E Institution and for constructing the building of the school and 
the third was a parent of a student of the school - None of 
these persons can be said to be as lacking good intention for 
the trust - The Division Bench of the High Court realized that 
a proper scheme for administration of Trust was necessary 
and, therefore, rightly framed the scheme considering the 
F object of the Trust. 
Trust for public purpose - A person belonging to a 
minority, created a Trust for the public purpose of running a 
school - HELD: The finding of the single Judge of the High 
G Court that the Trust was not a minority Trust was left 
undisturbed by the Division Bench of the High Court in appeal 
and reaffirmed by a Bench of three Judges of the Supreme 
Court - This being the position, the issue with respect to the 
character of the Trust as a secular education trust cannot be 
H 
1070 
DR. T. VARGHESE GEORGE v. KORA K. GEORGE 1071 
& ORS. 
permitted to be reopened - Even otherwise, the secular A 
character of the institution was set out in Clause 10 of the 
declaration made by the founder - There is nothing in the 
initial declaration made by the founder that the institution was 
to be a minority institution - All the trustees nominated were 
on ex-officio basis or on the basis of their qualifications and 
B 
not on the basis of religion - The funds and income was to 
be utilized for encouraging poor and deserving students 
irrespective of caste, creed or religion - It is nowhere stated 
in that declaration that the trust was being created for the 
benefit of the Christian community - Constitution of India, c 
1950 - Article 30. 
One T. Thomas who started a school by name 'St. 
Mary's School', executed a deed of declaration of a trust 
by name 'T. Thomas Educational Trust' for the purpose 
of running of the said school. On his death, the Trust and 
D 
the school came under the management of his wife, 
namely, Smt. 'ET'. There being allegation of mis-
management of the funds of the Trust by her, three 
persons including respondent no.1, filed a suit uls 92 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court 
E 
for framing a scheme for the Trust. The plea of Smt. 'ET' 
that the Trust was a private trust and a Minority lnsmution, 
was rejected and it was held that it was a Public 
Charitable Trust. It was found that the Trust was running 
several schools and a College also. The High Court, 
F 
ultimately, framed the scheme and appointed a Board of 
Trustees consisting eight persons including one former 
Judge of the High Court as its Chairman and one retired 
IAS as Executive Trustee. The SLP filed by Smt. 'ET' 
challenging the judgment of the High Court was G 
withdrawn by her. The appellant, who claimed to have 
raised some good funds for the Trust, but was not a party 
before the High Court, filed the instant appeal. The 
appellant also filed CMP No. 20476/2003 which was 
H 
1072 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A allowed by the High Court in 2005 and he was joined as 
a respondent in OSA No. 49 of 1995 before the High 
Court. The appellant filed CMP No. 5660/2005 and CMP 
No. 9402 of 2006 for appointment of a receiver and 
seeking modification of the scheme decree passed in 
B OSA No.49 of 1995. Meanwhile Smt. 'ET' died in 2006. The 
High Court dismissed all the three CMPs by a common 
order dated 21.9.2007. It further declined to entertain the 
CMPs filed by two more persons to be impleaded as 
additional applicants. The said two persons filed SLP 
C Nos. 22590 and 22591 of 2007. The appellant had also 
filed contempt petition No. 435 of 2004. 
The appellant in the instant appeal once again raised 
the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.