MENAKURU DASARATHARAMI REDDI versus DUDDUKURU SUBBA RAO

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 1122 · Decided: 10-05-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1957 
Babu/al .Amlltalal 
Metlio 
v. 
T lu Collector of 
Customs, Cakutta 
1957 
Ma7 IO. 
1122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957J 
smuggled goods. It is only those goods which answer 
the threefold description that come under the operation 
of the section. The object of the Act is to prevent 
smuggling. The differentia on the basis of which the 
goods have been classified and the presumption raised 
by the section obviously have - a rational relation 
t<> 
the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The 
presumption only attaches to goods of the description 
mentioned in the section and it directly furthers the 
object of the Act, namely, the prevention of smuggling, 
and that being the position the impugned section is 
clearly within the principle enunciated above, not hit 
by Art. 14. The impugned section cannot be struck 
down on 
the 
infirmity either of 
discrimination 
or 
illegal 
classification. 
Confining as it does to certain 
classes of goods seized by the customs authorities on 
the reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods, 
there is only a presumption which can be rebutted. 
In these circumstances, there can 
be no doubt 
whatever that s. 178-A does not offend Art. 14 of the 
Constitmion and 
this 
petition 
1s, 
therefore, 
to be 
dismissed with costs. 
Petition dismissed. 
MENAKURU DASARATHARAMI REDD! 
ti. 
DUDDUKURU SUBBA RAO 
(S. R. 
DAS C.J., 
fAFER 
IMAM, 
GAJENDRACADKAR 
and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Hindu 
[Aw-Charitable 
Endowment-Compromise 
decree-
Corutruction-Trust or charge-Intention of the donor-Test. 
A Hindu father executed a registered deed of trust giviug 
away his properties to public charities 
and appointed 
himself and 
two others as trustees. 
The .son 
in assertion by his right 
to a 
moiety share therein started to alienate them. 
There was 
litigation 
between the trustees and the son which ultimately ended in a 
compromise decree for .partition bet\\·een the father and the 
!'011, 
the two other trustees 
having retired pending litigation. 
A ftei 
' 
the death of both the father and the son a suit was brought under 
~~ 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1123 
s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the framing of a scheme 
for the administration of the trust. The trial court held that the 
trust deed had been substituted by the compromise decree which 
itself created a trust and decreed the suit on that basis. On appeal 
by two of the defendants who were transferees in possession of 
some of the properties in suit, the High Court affirmed the decision 
of the trial court holding that the compromise decree created a 
trust for public charities in respect of the properties aJlotted to 
the 
third plaintiff, meaning the father. 
The said defendants 
appealed to this Court. 
The principal question for decision was 
one of construction of the compromise decree, whether it created 
a trust or a charge. The relevant terms of the compromise decree 
were as foJlows:-
"that as regards the aforesaid schedule property, the third 
plaintiff should be the 'sole trustee' tiJI his lifetime for the purpose 
of conducting the charities described in the trust deed, dated 17th 
March, 1919, and he should utilise the income derived therefrom 
for the charities according to the necessity and should enjoy the 
said property tiJI his lifetime without rights 
to gift, 
sale 
etc., 
therein ; 
that after his 
death, the 
said entire property should pass 
on to his grandson Ramalingeswara Rao subject to the (perform-
ance of) the aforesaid kainkaryams (charities); 
that if the third plaintiff should die before the expiry of 
the 
minority of the aforesaid Ramalingeswara Rao arrangement 
should be made fo have a guardian appointed through Court for 
the property made to pa.ss to the said Ramalingeswara-
Rao, the 
said guatdian should take possession of 
th~ property and conduct 
the aforesaid charities and deliver possession of the same to the 
said Ramalingeswara Rao as soon as the minor attains majority ; 
that, 
thereafter 
the 
said 
Ramalingeswara 
Rao 
should 
conduct the abovementioned charities and enjoy the 
properties :" 
Held, that the courts below were in error in construing the 
compromise decree m the way they did and the appeal must 
succeed. 
There can be no doubt from the terms of the compromise 
decree read as a whole that what was intended to be created was 
a charge and not a trust in respect of the properties allotted to the 
father which retained their private character. 
The principles 

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