STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus BANSI DHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 679 · Decided: 11-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
~-
BANS! DHAR AND OTHERS 
December 11, 1973. 
[0. G. PALEKAR AND V. R .. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
679 
Public Trust-Doctrine of cypres, if applicable to non-testamentary gl/ts-
Conditions for Its applicability-General object, when inferred-Applicability of 
s. 83, Trusts Act (2 of 1882) to public trusts. 
In 1945, a donation of Rs. 30,000 was made for building a 6-bed hospital 
for women on an approved chosen spot, according to the approved plan, to 
be constructed by the 'donor with a matching co~tribution from the government 
and with any other voluntary donation. The donor died in 1947 and ell that 
was done by that time was to lay a foundation stone. In 1952, the sons of 
the donor filed a suit for return of the .Rs. 30,000 on, the ground that the 
conditions subject to which it' had been given had been violated and that the 
contemplated charity never materialised. 
The trial court and the High Court in appeal decreed the suit. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) · A hospital for women is a charitable .object and since the 
beneficiaries are a section of the public, it constitutes a public trust. 
'E 
(2) The doctrine of cypres is applicable to both testamentary and non-testa-
' 
G 
H 
mentary gifts for public charitable purposes. 
[68601 
Nori Venkata Ra111a Dikshitulu v. Ravi Ve11ka1appayya, A.1.R. 1960 A.P. 
3S and Patti S1van1i v. Rao Saheb D. Govi11darajulu, A.1.R. 1960 A.P. 605, 
referred to. 
(3) The coaditions for the application of the doctrine are"'."""'(a) The scttlor 
has shown a general charitable intention· that is, the charitable object is of a 
g;ener8.I and not of a specific nature, and the original trust has failed ab initio; 
(b) there must be impossibility, not in the stric..t physical sense but in the liberal. 
diluted sense, of impracticability of carrying out· the settlor's intention; and 
(c) there must be a completed gift. 
[6898·E) 
In re Hllsoni [1913] 1 Ch. 314, In re Ulversion and District New Hospital 
Building Trust, [19S6] l Ch. 622, Commissioner, Lucknow D/l'lslon v. Deputy 
Commissioner of Pertaogorlr, A.I.R. 1937 P.C. 240 and Jn re Rymer, [189)) 
l Ch .. 19, 31, referred to. 
• 
(4) The present is a borderline case is to whether there was a general 
intention te benefit the community, but Courts should lean in. tavour of the 
charity taking effect by imputing, 
witho~t straining the language,~ an intention 
to help the J)COt:>le of the area with a maternity hospital. The rule of law mu"St 
rile to this rule of life by a facU!tating the fulfilment of benevolent objecis 
but vigilantly guardina aaainst perversion, diversion. subversion, inaction and 
unjuot enrichment, where public donatiom have been raised.· [691D] · 
(5) But the tran11ct!on in the instant case wu not a a!ft s!mpiiciter but 
WM subject to a matching grant from the Government the build!na being 
required to be constructed by the donor with such augmented money etc. 
AHumlnR substantial compliance 
as sufficient in law. one of the conditions 
bas been carried out by the State. 
[693F] 
680 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1974) 2 S.C.R. 
HariJ!t Chandra 
v. 
Hindu Sharma Sewak lvlandal, A.l.R. 1936 All. 19 
Jn re U11;1·ersil'y of London fl-fedical Sciences lnsriture Fund, [1909] 2 Ch. 1;8-9, 
In re White's Trust, [1886] 
Ch. Div 449, Tudor 011 Charities and Halsbury's 
laws at t::nr..:land 3rd t.dn .. referred to. 
(6) The conditions having failed, the charity proved abortive, and the 
legal consequence is a resulting trust in favour of the door. 
Though s. 83 of 
the Trush Act, 1882 does not apply proprio rigvre, it embodies a universal rule 
er equity and good conscience and may be- held to be applicable to public 
charitable trusts also. 
f688A-B; 693F-Gl 
lGovl·:-nm.nt litigation involves expenditure of public money and should not 
bi: permitted to become an occasion for abu~ing 1he legal process regardless. of 
i.he m:Jrc.!itv of the nlease and indifferent to any otter of settlement of th~ clain1 
on f<iir tcrms.l 
CIVJL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 1844 of 1967. 
,\ppeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
10th August 1965 of the Allahabad High Court at Allahabad in First 
Appeal No. 435 of 1954. 
G. N. Dikshit and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant. 
R. K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for respondent No. 2. 
Tho Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
KRiSHNA !YER, J .-A litigation launched by the sons of a 
frustrated philaulhropist, who is no mor

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