LexILLACHI DEVI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
ILLACHI -DEVI (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
v.
JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF'ORPHANS INDIA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2003
B
[V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.]
Indian Succession Act ss.218, 223, 236-Whether society registered
under Societies Registration Act, 1860 can obtain letters of administration-
H<dd, no; soc;'ety is not a juristic person and cannot be granted letters of
C administration; Held further, letters of administration may however be
granted in favour of a person authorised by a society.
Indian Succession Act, s.236 and Companies Act, 1956 s.2(7)-
. Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, I 860 and company
under Companies Act, 1956-Distinction explained-Held, society is not
D a company; company enjoys identity distinct from its originai shareholders
·whereas society is undistinguishable from its own members.
Interpretation of Statutes-Indian Succession Act s.236-Exclusion
of qertain categories for grant of letters of administration-Whether a
E society rightly excluded-Held, yes; golden rule of interpretation requires
statute to be given literal and natural meaning.
RL, by a Will, bequeathed a part of his estate to an orphanage
run by JS a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. On RL's death, JS submitted an application under s.276 of the
F Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('Act') before the Court for grant of
Letters of Administration. The app~llant and later her legal
representatives opposed the maintainability of the petition on the
ground that JS could not be granted relief under s.236 of the Act The
High Court negatived the objection and allowed the application of JS.
G Hence the appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1. A probate or Letters of Administration with a copy
of the will annexed although may not be granted in favour of a society
H but may be granted in favour of a person authorised by a society either
62
;
' '
ILLACHI DEVI v. JAIN SOCIETY, PROTECTION OF ORPHANS
63
in terms of the statute or a resolution adopted in this behalf by the A
society, as the case may be, so that such person may be answerable to
the Court. On grant of Letters of Administration the person so
nominated by the society shall carry out the wishes of testator for the
benefit of society. (83-A, B]
1.2. A society registered under .the Societies Registration Act is not B
a juristic person. The law for the purpose of grant of probate or Letters
of Administration recognises only a juristic person and not mere
conglomeration of persons or a body which does not have any statutory
recognition as a juristic person. In litigation, the society rr~st be
represented through a person authorised in this behalf either in terms C
of its bye-laws or otherwise. (71-F, 82-H)
Mohashaya Krishna v. Mt. Maya Devi, AIR (35) 1948 Lahore 54;
Laxman Kumar v. Mohammed Moqbul Ali, (1974) CWR 1112; Benaras
Hindu University v. Gauri Dutt Joshi, AIR (1950) Aliahabad 196; Smith D
v. Anderson, (1880) 15 Ch. Div. 247 at 273; lnder Chand Nayyar v.
Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, AIR (1977) Delhi 34, referred to.
•
)
K.L. Thomas v. R.L. Gadeock, AIR (1970) Patna 163, overruled.
2.1. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act E
would not qualify to be considered as a company for the purpose of
ss.223 and 236 of the Act.
2.2. A society registered under the Societies Registration Act as
contra-distinguished from a company registered under the Companies
Act cannot sue in its own name. Even assuming that registered societies F
'could sue in their own name, that would not be enough to satisfy the
requirement of having a complete and unassailable legal identity.
[74-E, 77-F)
Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi v. State G
of Delhi (New Delhi Administration), AIR (1962) SC 458, followed.
3.1 .. The prohibitions laid dpwn by ss. 223 and 236 of the Act leave
no scope for creative interpretation. The court cannot supply casus
omissus. [81-C, DJ
H
64
_SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Mr. Justice B. Lentin, AIR (1988) SC
2267; Kanta Devi (Smt.) v~ Union of India, 12003) 4 SCC 753 and Shrimati
Tarulata Shyam v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, 11977] 3
sec 305, referred to.
B
· 3.2. All words employed in a statute must be given their full
meaning unless the same results in absurdity. [76-D]
c
.
. -
Gurudevadatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State 'of Maharashtra, (2001) 4Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.