LexPANDIT VASUDEV VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus BOARD OF MGMT, S.S.J.S. PEETH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. : PANDITVASUDEV VYAS·(DEAD) THROUGH LRS, · . ' . '. . v. . , ~ BOARD OF MGMT, S,S.J.S. PEETH AND ORS.• APRIL 25, 2006 . •.· [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B Trust: r 'Public Trust-Karveer Peeth . established .by Jagadguru Shankaracharya-Appointment to the post of sole trustee of Karveer Peeth- C Commissio'ner"<1ppointed second respondent as sole trustee-Appeal against, "dismissed by High Court--:Challenge to-Held: A scheme wasframedin1963 'for 'administration of Karveer Peeth stating· that the .presidii1g swamy of 'Kltf'Veer Peeth would be the sole trustee of Karveer Peeth-High ·Court did not consider the scheme~Matter renlitted 'Iv' High. Court for fresh' D . consideration. Jagadguru Shankaracharya had established various peeths, two of which ' were at Kolhapurknown as Kaveer Peeth artd Belgauin .·known·as Sankeshwar · Peeth. Both were separately registered. Karveer Peeth was registered under lhe'Bilinbay Public Trust Act The question:aroseabout the appointmentto · E the p'ost Of sole trustee of'the Karveer Peeth. The requirement was that ·proposed appointee niust be great scholar of Veda· and· a'Sanvasi;The latter qualification could'be got even after'the selection. : ,' • 1 ' In 1963, Charity Commissioner had framed· a scheme for administration -F .of Kar.veer Peeth. Para 6 of the Scheme stated.that the the1,1. occupant of Karveer · Peeth ·shall be sole-trustee of Karveer Peeth only subject to deeis,on in,pemJing litigation in Karnataka High Court. This litigation concluded deelaririg En_1ade Swami as true Shankaracharya of the Sankeshwar-Karveer Peeth. Charity Commissioner appointed the second respondent as sole trustee ·G of Karveer Peeth. Appellant challenged the appointment of second res'pondent on various grounds including that he was not a Sanyasi and that the tWo Peeths which were separately registered were in fact one. The First appeal and LPA both were dism'issed. . - . < • - -· ' - • " 273 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. A In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that High Court committed B an error in not considering clause 5 of the Scheme and in not considering the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court as the judgment of the Karnataka High court formed part of the records. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: l. The question as to whether both the Peeths are branches of a common entity may be determined having regard to Clause 5 of the Scheme ofl rust framed in the year 1963. This Court refrains from going into the said question and in particular the history thereof, as the High Court did not C addre~s itself as regards the import of Clause 5 of the Trust Deed. 1280-CI 2.1. The question as regards appointment of a sole trustee is a matter of great importance having regard to the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Charity Commissioner and consequently the appellate courts should have made all endeavours to give effect to the desire of the founding D trustees, if the said provision is applicable. It is in that view of the matter, the heirs and legal representative of original applicant may be permitted to step into his shoes. This question may be raised before the High Court. 1280-D-EI 2.2. Assuming that the two Peeths were separately registered but, in terms of the trust deed, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that Clause 5 E of the Scheme was relevant for the purpose of determination of~hc question as regards the appointment of the sole trustee. The said question was of great relevance, even if it be held that the two Peeths were registered separately and thus, were two separate entities in the eyes of law. It has not been disputed that the said judgment of the Karnataka High Court formed part of the record F before the courts below. Its relevance for the purpose of interpreting Clause 5 of the Scheme cannot be disputed. Whether the said Clause tits in with the Scheme is also required to be determined on the basis uf the materials on record. 1280-F-HI G CIVIL APPbLLATL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 735I o\2001. From the Final Order dated 24.4.2000 of the High Court of Bombay in LP.A. Stamp No. 11607/2000. R. Srivastava, E.R. Kumar and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants. H Chinmoy Khaladkar. S.K. Nandy, S.S. Shinde, Mukti Choudhary for V.N. PANDIT VASUl)EV VYAS (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. "·BOARD OF MGMT. SSJ.S. PEEtH [SINHA. lj 275 Ragh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.