Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Advocate-General says he understands Parsi community are not satisfied with that decision--(referring to 11 Bom. 441) and that he will not object to its being reconsidered.

36. Evidence has been recorded in this case and much of what I have said as to the evidence in the previous case also applies to the evidence in this case.

37. In this case the settler had set aside Government Paper of the nominal value of twenty-five thousand, and directed that the income thereof should be used for the purpose of performing Baj Rojgar and Muktad ceremonies and also for the purpose of giving "Dinners of feasts to the indigent poor Parsees and Eranees or Persian Parsees respectively who may be disabled by age, blindness or other infirmity of body or mind and who may for the time being be residing in the charitable buildings or asylums provided for them at or near Malabar Hill near the Towers of Silence." The learned Judge delivered an oral judgment on the 16th of April 1895, and passed a decree declaring "that the Trusts declared in the said Indenture of the, 30th day of June 1880 as to Promissory Notes of the Government of India of the nominal value of Rs. 25,000 are wholly void." Thus the remarkable result achieved by reconsidering the decision of Mr. Justice Jardine is not only that the Trusts for Baj Rojgar and Muktad ceremonies are void, but that a Trust created by a Parsi for feeding the indigent, blind and infirm members of his community, who, by reason of their misfortunes and afflictions would be inmates of the charitable houses provided for them by their community are also void. This decision requires much understanding, and it is very unfortunate that no authentic note of the judgment exists amongst the records of the Court. The plaintiff's counsel has furnished me with notes of the judgment taken by counsel, and what they show makes it still harder for me to reconcile what the learned Judge has taken down as having found on the evidence with what he decided. One thing is quite clear. The main ground of his decision was the judgment of Mr. Justice Jardine. The following are some of the notes taken by counsel:

As to Baj Rojgar ceremony trust is void by virtue of Indian Law Reports 11 Bom. 441.

Decision of Farran, J. in 565 of 1889 following above case though unreported as stated by counsel.

I follow 11 Bombay and hold that the ceremony is a private one, and the feeding a part of the same occasion as the Baj Rojgar ceremonies and the trust for Section 25,000 fails and forms part of the settler's estate.

38. Here we have the first faint indication that the ceremonies were for the benefit of the whole community, though the learned Judge thought the benefit was only incidental and that there was public benefit, although in the opinion of the Court the benefit was extremely small.

110. At the outset it is as well to observe that the English law of Mortmain does not extend to British India. For this the Privy Council decision in the case of the Mayor of Lyons v. East India Company (1836) 1 Moo. I.A. 175, is a very clear authority.

111. In England the Statute I of Edward VI., Chapter 14, known as "The Act for Chantrie's Collegiate" made certain existing religious trusts void and on the analogy of that Statute all trusts that followed the passing of that Statute and were analogous to those declared void by it were also held to be void. This policy of the Law is spoken of as the Doctrine of Superstitious Uses, and it is well established by a series of decisions, that this doctrine is not extended to India and has no application to Trusts relating to religion created in India See The Advocate-General v. Vishvanath Atmaram. 1 B.H.C.R. Appx. ix; Andrews v. Joakim 2 B.L.R., (O.C.J.) 148; Joseph Ezehiel Judah v. Aaron Hye Nusseem Ezehiel Judah 5 B.L.R. (O.C.J.) 433; Yeap Cheah Neo v. Ong Cheny Neo (1875) L.R. 6 P.C. 381.

135. I will next consider the very peculiar case of Thornton v. Howe (1862) 31 Beav. 14. In this case the Testatrix Ann Essam bequeathed the residue of her estate both real and personal, in trust, for printing, publishing and propagating the sacred writings of Johanna Southcote." The Heiress-at-Law of the Testatrix filed a Bill for a Declaration that the trust was void in law. She charged that the writings of Johanna Southcote...purport to declare, maintain or reveal that she was with child by the Holy Ghost and that a second Messiah was about to be born of her body, and that her writings were of a blasphemous and profane character, and that the trust was for the propagation of doctrines subversive of or contrary to the Christian religion. The Master of the Rolls, Sir John Romilly, before giving judgment, himself studied the works of Joanna Southcote. He came to the conclusion that she was a foolish ignorant woman, of an enthusiastic turn of mind. He said he had found much in her writings that in his opinion was very foolish, but there was nothing in them that was likely to make persons who read them immoral or irreligious, and he declined to declare the devise of the testatrix as invalid by reason of the tendency of the writings of Johanna Southcote. In the course of his judgment the Master of the Rollshas made some very weighty observations, which are of considerable importance in this case. He says (at p. 19):