MUNICIPALITY OF TALODA versus THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 652 · Decided: 28-09-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MUNICIPALITY OF TALODA 
v. 
THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER & ORS. 
September 28. 1967 
[J. C. SHAH AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.] 
Bombay Public Trusts Act (Bom. 29 l·' !WiO) Ss. 2(13) 9 and 72-
Decision o Survey Officer-Scope of-Trust fur uP certain and fluc-
tuating body of persons-Decision of Charity ,-.,mmissioner that 
public trust was not for the sect for which apph.aiion made-Main· 
tainabi!ity of application-Charity Commissioner, if has right to 
appeal. 
C 
Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. 6 of 1873) S. 17-Trust in 
favour of a section of _genera! public-Acceptance by Municipalitv-
Right of Municipality-Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. 3 of 
1901) s. 50 A-Decision of Survey Officer-Whether bars proceedings 
under Bombay Public Trusts Act. 
A property was conveyed to the respondent-Municipality by a 
deed "for the purpose of Sarvajanik Kam (public purpose) as it has 
D been utilised ,uptodate for shelter of Atit, Abhyaqat, Sadhu, Sant, 
etc!'. It was also recited in the deed that in the property conveyed 
there was "a Samadhi (grave) oti Nagabawa." The Municipality en-
tered possession and made certain constructions which were used for 
its offices and for shops. Thereafter, the Municipality sued for a dec-
ree for delivering possession of a part of the property against a Sadhu 
who had unlawfully occupied it and the suit was decreed. Later, in 
survey proceedings members of the Johari Panch claimed that they 
E had entrusted their temple to the Municipality for administering it 
for the community, but the compound belonged to them and that the 
Municipality was merely a trustee thereof. The Secretary of the 
Municipality admitted that in the property there existed a temple 
of the Joharis and that the members of that community had the right 
to vis\t the temple at fixed times but that they had no other right. 
The Survey Officer declared the Municipality to be the owner of the 
F property and not a trustee for the Johari Panch. Thereupon, an appli-
cation under s. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act was filed for a 
declaration that the property was settled in favour of the Municipa-
lity for the benefit· of the Johari Panch and that the property be 
registered as property of a public trust under the Act. The Charity 
Commissioner declared that there was a public trust, that the Munici-
pality was the trustee thereof, and that the property was transferred 
• 
in the Municipality for the benefit of members of the public interested 
G in the Samadhi of Nagabawa; but.he held that there was no such 
institution known as Johari Panch and that the property had not 
been used for the benefit of that community. In appeal, the District 
Court set aside the order of the Charity Commissioner. The Charity 
Commissioner appe11led to the High Court, which reversed the order 
of the District Court and restored the order of the Charity Commis-
sioner. In appeal; this Court, . 
B 
Held: The appeal must fail. 
(i) The property was entrusted to the Municipality. for providillll 
shelter to sndh.us, saints and religious mendicants. the purpose was 
religious and charitable within the meaning of S. 2 (13) of the 
652 
, 
-
l 
llIVNIC. OF TALODA V. CHARITY COMMR. (8/iah, J.) 
653 
Bombay Public Trusts Act. The trust was not limited to the build- A 
ings standing on the land; but extended to the entire property, 
Sadhus, religious mendicants and visitors to the Samadhi of 
Nagabawa are a section of the public. They have a common bond 
of veneration for the Samad/ti. The beneficiaries of the trust are an 
uncertain and fluctuating bod;• of persons forming a considerable 
section of the public and answering a particular description, and the 
fact that they belong to a religious faith ur a sect of persons of a 
certain relig·ious faith or a sect of persons of a certain religious B 
persuasion does not make any difference in the matter. [660 A-CJ. 
Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S. P. Sahi [1959J Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 583 
followed. 
(ii) After the transfer of the property was accepted by the Munici-
pality for the purpose mentioned in the deed it was not open to the 
Municipality to divert the use of that property for its own purposes. 
C 
There is nothing in Act 6 of 1873 or in the general law which pre-
vents a Municipality from accepting a trust in favour of a section of 
the general public in respect of property transferred to it. Nor does the 
Act authorise a Municipality, after accepting a trust, to utilise it for 
its o .. •n purpose-in br
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.