MAHANT RAMSWARUP GURU CHHOTE BALAKDAS versus MOTIRAM KHANDU PATIL & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 26-09-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
'lo I
341 
A 
MAHANT RAMSWARUP GURU CHHOTE BALAKDAS 
B 
v. 
MOTIRAM KHANDU PATIL & ORS. 
September 26, 1967 
[J. C. SHAH AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.J 
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 as amended by Act 6 of 1960, 
s. 28 and Schedule AA-Certain areas of Madhya Pradesh transferred 
to Maharashtra-Trusts registered under Madhya Pradesh Public 
Trusts Act, 1951 to be treated under s. 28 as registered under Bombay 
Act-Benefit of s. 28 whether availab!e to trust administered in 
, C Madhya Pradesh only a sman portion of whose property is situated 
in Maharashtra. 
Section 32(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands AC1i 
194B as amended by Act XIII of 1956 provides that on the first day; 
of April 1957 every tenant shall subject to certain provisions and 
exceptions be deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land 
D held by him as a tenant. Section BBB provides an exception in favour 
of trusts which are or are deemed to be registered under the Bombay 
Public Trusts Act, 1950 when the Collector after enquiry certifies 
to that effect. After the territorial changes made by the States Re. 
organisation Act 1956 and the further changes made in 1960 certain 
territories of the then State of Bombay were excluded and certain 
other areas were brought into the new State of Mah~rashtra. There-
after the Bombay Public Trusts (Unification and Amendment) Act, 
E 
1960 was passed, amending the Act of 1950. Before this amendment. 
s. 2B of the Act provided that all public trusts registered under any 
of the enactments specified in Schedule A thereto shall be deemed 
to have been registered under the Act from the date on whkh the 
Act was applied to them. By the amendment Schedule AA was added 
to the Act and when read with s. 2B the effect thereof was that the 
trusts registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act 1951 were deemed 
F to have been registered under the Bombay Act. 
The appellant in the present case was the mahant of a public 
and religious trust which was administered at Burhanpur, Madhya 
Pradesh. The bulk of its properties were in Burhanpur but three 
pieces of land lay in the new State of Maharashtra. The appellant 
relying on the amended s. 2B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and 
s. BBB of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act sought 
G exemption from the operation of s. 32 of the latter Act. The matter 
having been decided against him by the High Court at Bombay he 
appealed by certificate to this Court. 
' 
HELD: Though s. 28 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is couched 
in general terms it cannot mean that all trusts registered under the 
Madhya Pradesh Act are to be deemed to be registered under the 
H Bombay Act irrespective of whether they are sfflll situate in Madhya 
Pradesh and are liable to be administered under the 'Madhya Pra-
desh Public Trusts Act, 1951. The Act is intended to apply only to 
those trusts which as a result of the reorganisation of the State have 
come within the State of Maharashtra and to which the Bombay Ac~ 
did not apply, [645B-D1 
L/l(N)6SCI-·1(•) 
IV1llmlll QOUllT BliPOlltl 
[1968] I s.c.a. 
In the present case there was no dispute that the trust was 
administered at Burhanpur and the bulk of the properties, except 
the three pieces of land situate in Maharashtra lay in Madhya 
Pradesh. The fact that a part of its property was situate in Maha-
• 
rashtra State, though the trust was within Madhya Pradesh State, A 
would not mean that the trust would be governed partly by the 
Madhya Pradesh Act and partly by the Bombay Act. Such a divi-
sion of the Trust and its administration was not contemplated by 
eithe~ of the two Acts. The present trust did not therefore fall 
within the ambit of s. 28 and was not one of those trusts which 
could be deemed to be registered under the Bombay Act. Con- B 
sequently it was also not a trust which fulfilled the conditions of 
s. 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the 
appellant could not be said to be entitled to the certificate under 
that section. [645F-H) 
-
QVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 82 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 11 / 
12, 1962 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application C 
No. 259 of 1962. 
0. P. Malhotra, P. C. Bhartari and O. C. Mathur, for the 
appellant. 
The respondent did not appear. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the 
judgment of the High Court at Bombay dated 11 /12-12-1962

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.