LexVINODKUMAR M. MALAVIA ETC. versus MAGANLAL MANGALDAS GAMETI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2013) 14 S.C.R. 396
VINODKUMAR M. MALAVIA ETC.
v.
MAGANLAL MANGALDAS GAMET! & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos.8800-8801 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
Societies Registration Act, 1860 - ss. 5 and 13 - Bombay
C Public Trusts Act, 1950 - ss. 18, 36, 50A and 72 - Purported
unification of six churches including the First District Church
of the Brethren (FDCB) into a single entity, the Church of
North India (CNI) - Claim of appellants that unification of
FDCB with CNI resulted in dissolution of FDCB making CNI
o its legal successor and controller of its properties - Held: Not
tenable - The unification had no legal foundation whatsoever
-
FDCB was a religious society registered under the
Societies Registration Act and its property vested with a Trust
regulated by the BPTA - Procedure for dissolution of FDCB
E did not conform to requirements set out in s. 13 of the
Societies Registration Act and the procedure as laid down in
the BPT Act - In addition, there were evident lapses in the
formation of CNI - Since FDCB trust never stood dissolved,
the properties of the same did not vest with CNI - Merely by
F filing Change Reportls, CNI cannot claim a merger of
churches and thereby claim that the properties vested in the
Trust would vest in them - There was no tlissolution of the
society and further merger was not carried out in accordance
with the provisions of law.
G
First District Church of the Brethren ('FDCB'), an
offshoot of the 'Brethren Church' of USA, was a
registered religious society under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and also a registered as a public
H
396
VINODKUMAR M. MALAVIA v. MAGANLAL MANGALDAS 397
GAMETI
trust in Gujarat, after enactment of the Bombay Public
A
Trusts Act, 1950 ('BPTA'). Change reports were filed by
'FDCB' to give effect to unification of six churches
including the FDCB into a single entity, the Church of
North India (CNI).
Dispute arose as to 1) whether FDCB was dissolved;
2) whether CNI was successor of FDCB and 3) whether
B
by mere merger of FDCB into various other Churches,
the properties were by rules and regulations of the
Society ipso facto vested in CNI, without having to C
perform any other legal obligation or formality.
The Civil Court Judge held that the FDCB had not
been dissolved as there was no proper proof of the
same; that, as a trust and society are creations of
statutes, they must be dissolved accordingly and the
D
question of merger is a factual one, wherein the merging
trust continues to exist unless specifically dissolved
under the statute; and furthermore, without following
Section 50A of the BPT A which deals with the dissolution
of trust, the FDCB property cannot be vested with CNI.
E
Thus, the Civil 'court Judge quashed and set aside the
order of the Charity Commissioner. The High Court
confirmed the order of the Civil Court.
In the instant appeals, the appellants contended that
under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, they were
entitled to manage their affairs and the question of
unification of churches is a religious decision over which
F
the courts have no jurisdiction. Objections were raised
regarding the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner
and the courts impinging on the freedoms guaranteed
G
under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. It was
alleged that a refusal to allow the change in trust nullifies
the choice exercised by the community in a matter which
is purely religio~Js, of faith and ecclesiastical; especially
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C.R.
A considering the fact that the newly created entity follows
the same religion. Furthermore, the issue of estoppel was
raised in the light of the same in relation to the objections
to the unification raised by the respondents who had
earlier consented to the same.
B
c
The question for consideration before this Court was
whether the alleged unification of FDCB with CNI was
correct or not.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The unification has no legal foundation
whatsoever. The FDCB is a religious society registered
under the Societies Registration Act and its property vests
with a Trust regulated by the BPTA. As per the BPTA, a
0
public trust being religious in nature, may also be a society
under the Societies Registration Act. It is a well accepted
principle that a body created by a statute must conform
to the provisions of the regulExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.