SRI JAGADGURU KARI BASAVA RAJENDRASWAMI OF GAVIMUTT versus COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, HYDERABAD

Citation: [1964] 8 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 08-05-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1964 
Murarilal 
v. 
Dev Karan 
Gajendragadkar 
C. I. 
1964 -
May, 8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
Thus, it is clear that the equitable principle of justice, 
equity .and good conscience has been consistently applied by 
Civil Courts in dealing with mortgages in a substantial part 
of Rajasthan and that lends support to the contention of the 
respondent that it was recognised even in Alwar that if a 
mortgage deed contains a stipulation which unreasonably 
restrains or restricts the mortgagor's equity of redemption, 
courts were empowered to ignore that stipulation and enforce 
the mortgagor's right to redeem, subject, of course, to the 
general law of limitation prescribed in that behalf. 
We are, 
therefore, satisfied that no case has been made out by the 
appellant to justify our interference with the conclusion of 
the Rajasthan High Court that the relevant stipulation on 
which the appellant relies ought to be enforced even though 
it creates a clog on the equity of redemption. 
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed 
SRI JAGADGURU KARl BASAVA 
RAJENDRASWAMI OF GAVIMU'IT 
v. 
COMMISSIONER 
OF 
HINDU 
RELIGIOUS 
CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, HYDERABAD 
(P. B. GAJENDJUGADKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. c. 
SHAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(/)-Mutt-Framing of 5clreme-
Repeal of old Act by new Act-Promulgation of Comtitution -in 
the meantime·-Notice on Matadhipati to hand over possession to 
Executive Officer-Validity-Scheme, it must be tested by 
funda~ 
mental rights conferred by the Constitution-Madras Hirz•lu Religious 
and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 (Mad. XIX of 1951), ss. 
103(d), 62(3)(a)-(Mad. 11· of 1923), a. 63. 
lbe appellant, who was a Matadhipati, moved the High Court for 
a writ quashina the notice served on him in 1952 by the Executive 
Oftlcer to hBDd over to the latter the administration and the properties 
' .-
,'·:; 
8 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
253 
of the Mntt in enforcement of a scheme framed in 1939 under s. 63 
1964 
of the Madras Act II of 1927. The predecessor of the appellant had 
S . 1 
filed a suit in the District Judge's Court to set aside that scheme. The 
" 
a~~dguru 
suit failed and_ the scheme was confirmed subject to minor modifications. CommLuioner o] 
In 1951 the Madras Hindu Religious aud Charitable Endowments Act, Hindu 
R~ligiouJ 
1951, repealed and replaced the Madras Act II of 1927. It was urged Cltaritable Endow· 
on behalf of the appellant in the High Court that the scheme contravened 
ments 
his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The sinilC 
Judge who heard the matter found in his favour and held that the 
sche1.r.1e contravened Art. 19( 1 }(f) of the Constitution. On appeal by 
the respondent, the Division Bench reversed the decision of the Single 
Judge. The High Court granted certificate to the appdlant to appeal 
to this Court. It was contended that although the scheme was valid 
as framed under the earlier Act, it incumbent under s. 103(d) of the 
Act of 1951 that the validity of the all the provisions of the schemo 
must be tested in the light of its provisions. 
Held: Section 103{d) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable 
. 
. 
Endowments Act, 1951, properly constn1ed, merely meant that earlier 
schemes framed under M2.dras Act II of 1927 wou!c.l be operative as 
though they were framed under the Act of 1951. 1t was n:'>t intended 
by the section that those schemes must be examined and reframed in 
the light of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section ~2{3 )(a) of 
the Act which provided for the modification of such schemes made 
this amply dear. Unless the schemes could be modified under that 
section tbey must be deemed to have been validly made under the Act 
of 1951 and enforced as 5uch. 
East E11d Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, {t952J 
A.C. 109, considered .. 
Althou~h the scheme in question bad not been completely imple~ 
mented before the Constitution, that was no ground for e~~.mi"nin~ its 
provision in the light of Art. 19 of the Constitution. 
The fundamental rights conferred by the Coostitution are not retros-
pective in operation and the observation made by this Court in Seth 
Shanti Sarup v. Union of India, are n"ot applicable to the pre.~eut case. 
Seth Shanti Sarup v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 62-i, explained 
and distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 745 
t)f 1963. 
Appeal from the judgment and orde

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