Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The next contention urged on behalf of the appellants is that the provisions in Chapter V, and in particular ss. 28 and 32, violate the fundamental right guaranteed to the appellants under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, namely, their right to acquire, hold and dispose of the trust properties. This argument before us has proceeded on the footing that the properties which the appellants bold are trust properties within the meaning of the Act ; but we must state here that the appellants have also alleged that the properties are their private properties, to which aspect of the case we shall advert later. Chapter V of the Act, and in particular s. 28 thereof, lays down the powers and duties of the Board. To some of these powers and duties we have already made a reference earlier. Section 32 gives power to the Board, of its own motion or on application made to it in that behalf by two or more persons interested in any trust, to settle schemes for proper administration of the religious trust. There are other sections in the chapter which give the Board power to enter into contracts and to borrow money, etc., for carrying out any of the purposes of the Act or to give effect to the provisions thereof. Under s. 58 every trustee must carry out all directions which may from time to time be issued to him by the Board under any of the provisions of the Act. The powers given under s. 28 include the power to prepare and settle the budget, to cause inspection to be made of the property and the office of any religious trust, to call for information, reports, returns, etc., to give directions for the proper administration of a religious trust in accordance with the law governing such trusts and the wishes of the founder, to remove a trustee from his office in certain circumstances, and to control and administer the trust fund, etc. The argument before us is that the position of a maharani or shebait of a Hindu religious trust is a combination of office and proprietary right and under the provisions of the Act the mahant or shebait practically loses his right of management and is reduced to the position of a mere servant of the Board; this, it is contended, is violative of the appellants' fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(f).

In Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick (1) Mukherjea, J., delivering the majority judgment of this Court, has said that the exact legal position of a, shebait may not be capable of precise definition, but its implications are fairly well established. It is now settled that the relation of a shebait in regard to (1) [1951] S.C.R. 1125, 1133.

debutter property is not that of a trustee to trust property under the English law.

Mukherjea, J., said :

" In English law the legal estate in the trust property vests in the trustee who holds it for the benefit of cestui que trust. In a Hindu religious endowment on the other hand the entire ownership of the dedicated property is transferred to the deity or the institution itself as a juristic person and the shebait or mahant is a mere manager. But though a shebait is a manager and not a trustee in the technical sense, it would not be correct to describe the shebaitship as a mere office. The shebait has not only duties to discharge in connection with the endowment, but he has a beneficial interest in the debutter property............ In almost all such endowments the shebait has a share in the usufruct of the debutter property which depends upon the terms of the grant or upon custom or usage. Even where no emoluments are attached to the office of the shebait, he enjoys some sort of right or interest in the endowed property which partially at least has the character of a proprietary right. Thus, in the conception of shebaiti both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are mixed up and blended together ; and one of the elements cannot be detached from the other. It is the presence of this personal or beneficial interest in the endowed property which invests shebaitship with the character of proprietary rights and attaches to it the legal incidents of property."

It is to be remembered that even before the passing of the Act here impugned, there was statutory machinery for enforcing the obligations and duties imposed Upon mahant or shebait. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided that in the case of an alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature or where the direction of the court was deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Advocate-General, might institute a suit to obtain a decree-(a) to remove any trustee, (b) appointing a new trustee, (c) vesting any property in a trustee, (d) directing accounts and enquiries, (e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust, (f) authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged, (g) settling scheme and/or (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case might require. The section therefore provided an important machinery for enforcing the obligations and duties imposed on trustees and the jurisdiction given to the court was of a very wide extent. Now, the right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(f) is subject to cl. (5), thereof, which says inter alia that nothing in sub- clause (f) shall prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the general public. We are of the view, in agreement with that of the High Court, that the restrictions imposed by the Act on the power of the trustees are really intended, as the preamble of the Act states, for the better administration of Hindu religious trusts in the State of Bihar and for the protection and preservation of properties appertaining to such trusts. It is indeed true that the Act provides a better and more speedy remedy for the enforcement of the obligations and duties imposed on the trustees than the lengthy and cumbrous procedure of a suit under s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Board is vested with summary powers in various matters, but the control is to be exercised for the better and more efficient administration of the trust and for the protection and preservation of the trust properties. It is germane to refer in this connection to sub-s. (1) of s. 28 which states that the Board shall do all things reasonable and necessary to ensure that the religious trusts are properly supervised and administered and that the income thereof is duly appropriated and applied to the objects of such trusts and in accordance with the purposes for which such trusts were founded. Section 60 (2) no doubt empowers the Board to alter or modify the budget of any religious trust in such manner and to such extent as it thinks fit ; but sub-s. (6) of s. 60 makes it clear that nothing contained in the section shall be deemed to autborise the Board to alter or modify any budget in a manner or to an extent inconsistent with the wishes of the founder, so far-as such wishes can be ascertained, or with the provisions of the Act. Section 28 (2) (h) gives the Board power to remove a trustee from his office in certain contingencies; but sub-s. (3) of s. 28 says that an order of removal passed by the Board under el. (h) of sub-s. (2) shall be communicated to the trustee concerned and such trustee may within 90 days of the communication of such order apply to the District Judge for varying, modifying or setting aside the order. Section 28 (2) (j) empowers the Board to sanction the conversion of any property of a religious trust into another property if the Board is satisfied that such conversion is beneficial for the trust; there is, however, an important proviso that no such conversion shall be sanctioned unless the Board so resolves by a majority which includes at least three-fourths of its members and the resolution is approved by the District Judge. Even with regard to the settling of a scheme under s. 32 there is a safeguard under sub-s. (3) thereof, which says that the trustee or any person interested in the trust may within three months of the publication of the scheme make an application to the District Judge for varying, modifying or setting aside the scheme.