Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. Taking up the first question, whether a trust created for the benefit of the Satsangis can be deemed to be a trust for charitable objects in the sense that it is for the public benefit, the whole argument of learned counsel, though addressed at great length, centres round only one submission that no one can be a Satsangi who is not initiated by the Sant Satguru and he is, therefore, the nexus connecting' the Satsangis with one another and the Satsangis must, therefore, be deemed to be a group of individuals selected by the Sant Satguru and not a cross section of the public. An attempt has been made to reinforce this argument by reference to various cases relating to charities created for the benefit of clubs, or employees of particular firms or companies or members of connected families, and the cases relating to religious sects and communities have been attempted to be distinguished on the ground that the conception of the Guru or the leader vitally differs between other sects and followers of the Radhaswami faith.

33. The argument, however, was that the objects for which the properties are held by the Sabha under an obligation are not all charitable and religious objects and in that connection learned counsel cited a large number of English cases to show what charity means in England. The first case cited by him is --'Morice v. Bishop of Durham', (1804) 9 Ves Jun 399 (M).

That case is not very helpful. The point decided in that case was that a bequest for such objects of benevolence and liberality as the trustee in his own discretion shall most approve is not valid as the objects are uncertain but an exception is made in cases of a trust for charity where even if the particular objects of charity are not specified the trust will not fail. It may, however, be pointed out that in that case it was held that the list given in the preamble has not been considered to be exhaustive and even from the time of Elizabeth onwards the Court of Chancery included objects analogous to those enumerated within the term charitable. (See also Keeton's Law of Trusts. 4th edn., 133).

Kania J. expressed his opinion in these words: "When there is a general charitable intention, the Court will uphold it, and if within that limit discretion is given to the trustees to select an object the trust will not fail because of the discretion so given. If a trustee selects an object, which is not charitable according to law, the Court can intervene and rectify the error,"

46. 'In re Vallabhadas Karsondas Natha', AIR 1947 Bom 382 (U) where the trust deed provided that the property was dedicated for religious and charitable objects such as, and then eight objects were enumerated, some of which were neither religious nor charitable, Stone C. J., dealing with the objection that the whole trust was invalid, said : "the material words are that what is settled is to be dedicated 'for ever by me for religious and charitable objects, such as': and then are set out the eight objects, and the question is whether those eight objects predominate and govern the preceding trust or whether they are to be regarded as illustrative of the type of religious or charitable objects to which the trustees may apply the funds. In my opinion, the latter is the correct view, ............"

Chagla J. expressed himself in this way : "The dedication is to religious and charitable objects and the trustees have no discretion to apply any of the trust income except to religious and charitable objects. If any of the eight objects which are specified as and by way of illustration do not fall within the category of religious and charitable objects, then the trustees must discard such objects and apply the trust income only to religious and charitable objects."

Mr. Pathak's argument is that these two decisions are distinguishable as Satsangis considered all the objects of the Sabha to be religious and charitable and the rules, therefore, must be interpreted to enjoin on the Sabha the duty of administering the funds for the benefit of all the objects, whether religious and charitable or not. We do not think this argument has any substance. In our view, this case is a much stronger case than the Bombay decision -- 'In re Vallabhadas (U)'. In the case before us, even the objects are not enumerated and all that is said is that the property is to be utilised in furtherance of the religious and charitable objects of the Satsang and if any object does not come in the category of being religious and charitable then the Sabha cannot utilise the income for that purpose.