Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In the said Suit, opposite party no.8, Kailash Narain Shivpuri moved an application under Section 5 (3) of the Act of 1920 and gave an undertaking for instituting a suit for declaration before the Civil Court. The District Judge, on 17.08.1968, passed an order staying the proceedings of Case No.32 of 1966 and granted time for filing declaratory suit.

7. Kailash Narain Shivpuri, thereafter, filed an Original Suit No.1268 of 1968 in the Court of Munsif, Jhansi seeking a relief of declaration to the effect that the Trust in Suit (Misc. Case No.32/66-67 of the Court of District Judge, Jhansi) is not one to which the Act, 1920 applies. In the said Suit, both Dr. Govardhan Das Agarwal and Manohar Lal Shahaney, who were the plaintiffs in Case No.32 of 1966 were arrayed as the defendants. The said Suit was contested and the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.1971 dismissed the Suit. Against the said judgment, First Appeal No.121 of 1971 was filed by Kailash Narain Shivpuri.

(i) Whether the Trust which is not Charitable can be governed by the provisions of Charitable Endowment Act, 1890 and,

(ii) Whether the Notification dated 07.07.1972 issued under Section 4 of Charitable Endowment Act, 1890 was void and without jurisdiction?

17. Sri Anil Sharma, learned Senior Counsel submitted that before the Notification dated 07.07.1972, two trustees, namely, Govardhan Das Agarwal and Manohar Lal Shahaney in the year 1966 had moved application under Section 3 of Act, 1920 seeking particulars as regards nature and objects of the Trust. In the said proceedings, another trustee Kailash Nath Shivpuri had objected and moved application under Section 5(3) of the Act of 1920 and the District Judge granted permission to file a suit for declaration. According to him, the suit filed in the year 1968 was categorical to the effect that a declaration was sought that the Trust in Suit/Case No.32/67 is not one to which Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 applies.

54. Correspondingly, the judgment in personam refers to a judgment against a person as distinguished judgment against a thing, right or status and judgment in rem refers to a judgment that determines the status or conditions of property which operates directly on the property itself.

55. In the present case, the Court while decreeing the Suit of K.N. Shivpuri had declared the status of the ''Tandon Trust', not being a charitable and a religious trust covered under the Act of 1920. The declaration made by the Court as to the status of the trust is to the world at large and not to any particular party in a suit, as it affects people at large.

61. The judgment and order passed by both the Courts below are illegal and arbitrary as they have failed to honour and comply the judgment of this Court dated 21.10.1981, declaring the status of the ''Tandon Trust'. Once, the declaration was there, the defendants nor the Courts below had the right to dishonour the same.

62. Considering the facts that the ''Tandon Trust' created in 1946 having been declared to be a non-religious and non-charitable trust and out of the scope of Act of 1920, the same cannot be governed by the provisions of the Charitable and Endowments Act, 1890, as there was no element of charity in the deed created/executed by the Author of the Trust.