RAJESH D. DARBAR AND ORS. versus NARASINGRAO KRISHNAJI KULKARNI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 273 · Decided: 06-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJESH D. DARBAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
NARASINGRAO KRISHNAH KULKARNI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 6, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950-Section 72(4)-Hindu Religidus 
Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997-Dispute regarding 
inductment of certain persons in electoral roll of a society-Election held in C 
1996-Term of the Committee already over-Whether due to lapse of time 
validity of election of 1996 become non-est and whether the names were 
legally inducted-Application for adducing additional evidence before Charity 
Commissioner not pressed-High Court held the inductment of names as legal 
and that not dealing with additional evidence by Charity Commissioner caused 
prejudice-Held: Prejudice not caused as the application itself was riot D 
pressed-The case remanded to Appellate Authority to decide the eligibility of 
the persons. 
Subsequent event-Moulding of relief-Permissibility of-Held: The 
Courts can take notice of the subsequent events and can mould the relief if the E 
relief originally sought becomes obsolete and new relief is more efficacious in 
view of subsequent events-But the party claiming the relief must have the 
same right from which either the first or the modified remedy may jlow-+-
Amendment may also be permitted where cause of action is deficient but made 
up by later events, in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation provided no 
prejudice is caused to the other side-But if the statute inhibits such change, F 
it is not permissible. 
Maxims: 
Actus curiae neminem gravabit; Lex non cogit ad, impossibilia-Meaning 
of 
In a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and 
under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, electoral rolls for the election wer~ 
prepared for election of the Managing Committee. Appellants claimed that 
G 
the names of 38 persons, included in the roll, were not eligible td H 
273 
274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A participate in the election. The election was held in October, 1996. Term 
of the Committee expired. After the decision of Additional District Judge, 
the same was challenged by way of appeal under Section 72(4) of Bombay 
Public Trust Act, 1950. High Court concluded that the 38 persons were 
legally inducted as members; and that since the applications filed by 
B respondents 1 to 12 for adducing additional evidence before Charity 
Commissioner were not dealt with, caused prejudice to the case of 
respondents. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that High Court lost 
sight of the fact that by passage of time the dispute as regards the validity 
C of the election in October, 1996 became non-est; that the 38 persons were 
not legally inducted as members; and that applications filed by the 
respondents for adducing additional evidence before Charity 
Commissioner were not pressed by the applicants and hence the question 
of not dealing with the application did not arise. Bombay Public Trust Act, 
D 1950 was later repealed by the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable 
Endowments Act, 1997. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Courts can take notice of the subsequent events and 
can mould the relief accordingly. But there is a rider to these well 
E established principles. This equitable principle cannot, however, stand in 
the way of the court adjudicating the rights already vested by a statute. 
Courts of justice may, when the compelling equities of a case oblige them, 
shape reliefs - cannot deny rights - to make them justly relevant in the 
updated circumstances. Where the relief is discretionary, Courts may 
F exercise this jurisdiction to avoid injustice. Likewise, where the right to 
the remedy depends, under the statute itself, on the presence or absence 
of certain basic facts at ~he time the relief is to be ultimately granted, the 
Court, even in appeal, can take note of such supervening facts with 
fundamental impact. (279-A, B; 278-B, C, DJ 
G 
P. Venkateswarlu v. The Motor and General Traders, AIR (1975) SC 
1409, referred to. 
1.2. Where the nature of the relief, as originally sought, has become 
obsolete or unserviceable or a new form of relief will be more efficacious 
H on account of developments subsequent to the suit or even during the 
appellate stage, it is but fair that the relief is moulded, varied or reshaped 
RAJESH D. DARBAR v. N.K. KULKARNI 
275 
in the light of updated facts. The party claiming the relief or change of A 
relief must have the 

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