LexPRESIDENT OF THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST & ANR. versus NALINI CHOUDHARI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A c 0 E f G H ' • PRESIDENT OF THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST & ANR. ~. NALINI CHOUDHARI" & ORS. (With connected appeals) August 23, 1973 IH. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] Bihar Hindu Religiol~ ,Trusts Act, 1950, ss. 43 a11d 67-Scope of. 481 Section 43(1) of the Bihar Hindu Re.1igious Trusts Act, 1950, as amended in 1956, provides, that all dispu'.es as to whether any immovable property is or is not.. a trusl property shall be inquired into by the authority appointed by the State Governn1ent; and s. 67 of the Act provides that if a trustee fails without re.nsonable ca11se to comply with certain matters or furnish certain i1articulars which he is required or called upon to furnish under the Act, he shall be Hable to punishment. The respondents, who were called upon to furnish certain particulars -falling under s. 67, in relation to certain temples, contended, that there was no trust, that s. 43 provides a machinery f'Jr deciding whether there is a trust and who is the trustee of the trust, and that a decision under the section was a condition rrecrdent to lhe launchin~ of a prosecution under s. o7. The High Court accepted the contention. Allowing the appeals to this Court. HELD : Neither expressly nor by necessary implication, s. 43 or any other provision of the \ct bars the prosecution under s. 67 without a decision under a;. 43. r4H6 Bl ln a prosecution under s. 67, it is open to th: persons prosecuted to contend that there is no trust and that they are n'Jt trustees. It would then be for the prosecution to make out all the ingredients of the offence and the two mai• ingredients are : ( 1) that there is a trust and (2) that the person prosecuted is a trustee. ln that case, it will be for the Court before which the prosecutioR has been instituted to decide the questi'Jns on the material placed before it. There ls nothing preventing the criminal courts from going into these question!I. [484H-485CI Under s. 43, the only question that can b! decided is whether any immov- able property is a trust property or not. Under the section as it originally stood, the Board of religious trusts or any person interested in a religiou~ lrust may, at any time, apply to the Distrlc.t Judge for a declaration that any immovable property is trust property; and under the section, as amended i• -1956, all dispurt·s as to whether any immovable property is trust property, shall .be inquired into by the authority appointed. But, in .either case, the only q1 1~s tion that can b~ decided under the secti'Jn is whether any immovable property is or is not trust property. The _section, b!fore or after amendment. does not provide for a decision as to whether there is any religi!)us trust or whether any pei>on is a trustee. [485G·486B] It is p0ssible that, when a question is raised before the authority under the section whether a certain immovable · property is trust property or not, the person i'1tl":-este1l mi~ht contend that the-e was no tru~t at all. In ~uch a cas:!. the authority, for the purpose of deciding whether the property is trust .P_ro· oorty. will hav-:! to decide whe•her there is a. trust at a·H. ~u~ .so~h a decisi.on is only for the purpose of decidir:.6 whether 1t has the )unsd1ction t_? decide whether the property in question is trust property. ]~.it wrongly dec1~es tlt~t there is a trus~ and that it has iuriscfi.:tion. such a deCJSton can. be quesuoned 1n a civil court. In any case, under the section, it cannot be decided whether any body is a trustee. Thus, the only question that can be decided under s. 43 1~ 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19P· ] 1 s.c.R. irrelevant to the case of the prosecution in respect of many of the offeiiccs ~ mentioned in-s. 67. [4S5D-Gl Mahanth Ramdhan Puri v. President, S.B.R.T. Patna, ~955 B.L.l.R. 665, Bihar State:..Religious Trust Board v.,Mahanth Jaleshwar Gir & Ors., l.L.R. (1967) 46 Patna 23, B. S. Board of l"T. v, R.R. Gir, !969 B.L.LR: 63, S. s. Clwubey v. B.H.R.T. Board, [19691 B.L.J.R. 74 and Parmeshwan I'd. Singh v. The Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious Trusts, 1968 P · L. J. R · 386, ;pproved. B Mahan! Ranl Saroop Dasii v. S. P. Sa/1i, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 583, explained. Mst, Chu.n1pa Sahu v. The Bi/Jar Religious Tr!J.Sl Bdart! Patna·, 24"8-1961 of the Patna High Court, overruled. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2029 ©! 1970. Appeal from the judgment and dec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.