Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The question that arises then for decision is: Is this Court competent to entertain a suit for the administration of a charity and for removal of trustees and for appointment of new trustees, when the charity is to all intents and purposes a foreign charity, the management of the charity is carried on in a foreign territory and the trustees are non-resident foreigners, merely because some of the properties which belong to the charity are situate within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and its income is collected and is required to be applied for purposes of the charity. For the decision of this question I have omitted from consideration the state of things which prevailed when the suit was filed and I have taken into consideration the state of things which exists when this issue as to jurisdiction is sought to be argued.

8. In the present case, the charity is a foreign charity; it is administered in a foreign country, and even the trustees are residing in a foreign country, and normally this Court would not be entitled to administer that charity or to give directions with regard to administration of that charity to persons who are not subject to its process. The question then is : Does the fact that some of the properties are within the jurisdiction confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the present suit and to interfere with the administration of a foreign charity by exercising jurisdiction over the defendants who are non-resident foreigners, or even to grant any other relief?

11. The expression 'jurisdiction' is used in the authorities relied upon by Mr. Banaji not in the sense of territorial or inherent authority to entertain an action, but is used in the sense of sanction behind the judgment in its operation beyond the limits of the territory in which the Court functions. The context in which the expression is used makes it abundantly clear that it was not sought to lay down that a claim in which 'inter alia' a relief seeking to remove trustees of a foreign charity and to interfere with the administration of a foreign charity is asked cannot be entertained.

"That the Court will protect and preserve the funds of the charity by the exercise of its jurisdiction over the trustees or other persons is very certain."

In the present suit the plaintiffs have claimed reliefs for declaration of title of the trust, for removal of trustees, and appointment of new trustees for vesting the property in new trustees, for accounts and for framing scheme and for further and other reliefs. Even if this Court be incompetent to grant the reliefs, which interfere with the administration of the trust in the foreign countries, such as framing a scheme, removal of trustees and appointment of new trustees and corresponding reliefs, this Court can at least protect the property within its jurisdiction for the benefit of the trust, and to that end pass all such consequential orders as may be necessary.