VINOD KUMAR MATHURSEVA MALVIA AND ANR. versus MAGANLAL MANGALDAS GAMETI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 24-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIN OD KUMAR MA THURS EV A MAL VIA AND ANR. 
v. 
MAGANLAL MANGALDAS GAMET! AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Trusts and Charities: 
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950-Section 22-Trusts registered under 
C the Act--Having Scheme for appointment of trustees--Five change notices 
not considered by Assistant Charity Commissioner-Subsequent change notice 
by sole trustee approved without holding an enquiry-Claim of another trust 
to recommend the names of trustees on the ground of its having succeeded 
the trust preferring change notice due to its amalgamation with it-In a 
D different suit on the question of amalgamation of the trusts decision of 
Supreme Court that civil court have no jurisdiction in such matters-By 
impugned order High Court though noticed the matter was subjudice before 
Charity Commissioner, yet held that the question of merger had been decided 
by Supreme Court-On appeal, held: the impugned order was contradictory 
and inconsistent-The question of merger of the trusts was to be determined. 
E by the statutory authorities-Direction to Charity Commissioner to determine 
all the questions in pending disputes. 
A trust CBGB was registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. It 
had a scheme for administration and management indicating mode of succession 
F for appointment of trustees. A public trust CNI was also registered before the 
Charity Commissioner. Yet another trust FDCB was registered under the 
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also in terms of Bombay Public Trust Act. 
Five change notices were filed before Assistant Commissioner but no action was 
taken thereupon. Respondent No. 1, the sole surviving trustee filed a change 
notice proposing deletion of names of few trustees and appointment of four, as 
G trustees. The change notice was approved by Assistant Commissioner. In appea~ 
appellate authority (Joint Charity Commissioner) remanded the matter to the 
Assistant Commissioner holding that procedure was not followed while approving 
the change notice. CNI also filed a change notice proposing five names to include 
them as trustees. Its stand was that FDCB lost its entity and has been amalgamated 
H 
668 
. . 
VINOD KUMAR MA THURS EVA MAL VIA'" MAGANLAL MANGALDAS GAMET! 
669 
therewith and thus CNI alone had the authority to recommend names of the A 
trustees. The change notice was disputed by trustee of CGBG before Joint Charity 
Commissioner. The matter was remitted to Assistant Charity Commissioner to 
frame issues as to whether FDCB was amalgamated with CNI and whether CNI 
was successor ofFDCB. Said decision was impugned before District Court. 
In the meanwhile a suit on the question of amalgamation of the B 
aforementioned trusts was filed. When carried in appeal to Supreme Court, it 
was held that civil court had no jurisdiction in such matters. High court by the 
impugned order, relying on the decision of the Supreme court, held that FDCB 
did not cease to exist Regarding change notice filed by CNI it held that the issue 
of merger between churches was required to be decided by the Charity C 
Commissioner and such issue was subjudice. Hence the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD I. The Assistant Charity Commissioner did not foUow the procedure 
before approving the change notice filed by the first respondent It is on that D 
premise that the Joint Charity Com missioner directed the Assistant Charity 
Commissioner to consider the change notice in terms of the rules. However, that • 
order was set aside by the District Court The High Court although noticed that 
the matter is subjudice before the Charity Commissioner and, thus, the said issue 
has to be resolved upon giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties, E 
erroneously proceeded to hold that this Court had already adjudicated upon the 
said issue. The aforementioned two findings of the High Court are contradictory 
and inconsistent High Court in its judgment noticed that the Assistant Charity 
Commissioner was required to foUow the procedure laid down in the Act in terms 
whereof enquiry into the matter was mandatory. [675-C-E) 
F 
2. High Court arrived at a wrong conclusion that the FDCB did not cease 
to exist. Such a question indisputably, in view of the decision of this Court, is 
required to be determined by the statutory authorities under the Bombay Public 
Trust Act and not by the civil court This Court held that the civil court had no 
jurisdicti

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