Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The other branch of the case involves issues of far greater importance and has caused considerable stir and excitement amongst the Parsi community of Bombay. The plaintiffs say the Zoroastrian religion not only permits but enjoins conversion of aliens to that faith. They claim that certain of the Properties and Funds in the possession of the defendants wore originally dedicated by the Founders or Donors for all Zoroastrians, and that all Zoroastrians, including those who originally were born in another faith but are subsequently converted to Zoroastrianism, are entitled to the use and benefit of those Funds and Properties. Amongst the Properties the plaintiffs pick out as being intended for the use and benefit of all Zoroastrians, including converts to that faith, are the five Towers of Silence at Malabar Hill, certain Sagdis and Nasakhanas erected and maintained in connection with those Towers, and the Godavara Agiary. They also claim that such converts are entitled to participate in and have the benefit of the "Fund for carrying the dead bodies of all Zoroastrians to the Towers of Silence." They further contend that the Trust Deed of the 25th of September, 1884, mentioned in their plaint either contains wrong declarations of Trust or that the interpretation put by the defendants on those declarations is wrong, and they pray for a declaration by this Court that the Trusts contained in that Deed, so far as they relate to at least three Dokhmas, Sagdis and Nasakhanas are ultra vires and void in so far as they differ from the original Trusts, and they ask for the ascertainment and declaration by the Court of the real Trusts on which these Properties are held.

9. The defendants deny that the declarations of Trusts contained in the Deed of 1884 are either ultra vires or void, and they further deny that such declarations of Trusts differ from the original Trusts. They con- tend that the intention of the Founder or Endower of the Trust in respect of each one of the Properties and Funds was to found or endow such Trust for members of the Parsi community professing the Zoroastrian religion and not for persons converted to that faith-such converts never being at any time within the contemplation of such Founder or Endower. The defendants have contended before us that although the religion promulgated by Zoroaster contemplated conversion, the Parsis ever since their settlement in India have never sought or encouraged the conversion of aliens to their faith and that the persons who founded or endowed those religious institutions or contributed funds for religious and charitable objects never contemplated the possibility of any outsider being converted to Zorastrianism and claiming the benefit of those Institutions or Funds. They maintain that even though a property or a fund may be endowed or dedicated in general terms for the benefit of Zoroastrians, Mazdyasnans, Zarthosti Anjuman, Zoroastrian Anjuman or other similar terms, such terms, within the meaning and intention of the Founders, included members of the Parsi community professing the Zoroastrian religion and that a person born outside of the community but converted to Zoroastrian was never within the contemplation of the Founders of these religious charities. In paragraph 14 of their written statement the defendants state in explicit terms who are regarded as members of the Parsi community and as such entitled to the benefits of the Charitable Funds and Institutions founded and endowed by the various members of the community. They are, in the first instance, the descendants of the original Persian Emigrants who came to India in consequence of Mahomedan persecution and who profess the Zoroastrain faith, and secondly, the descendants of Zoroastrians who remained in Persia but who come and settle in India either temporarily or permanently and profess the Zoroastrain faith. This latter class are commonly known as Irani Parsis. In addition to these two classes they say an exception has been made in favour of a third class of persons and these are the children of Parsi fathers by alien mothers. Though exception in favour of this class has been made, they say, since ancient times, such exception has not been viewed with favour by the Parsi community, and the defendants add that they have not disputed the right of such offsprings of Parsi fathers in deference to the usage obtaining from ancient times. Tin's class, however, is very limited.