SHIVNARAYAN SARUPCHAND Vs. BILASRAI JUHARMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Chagla, and, in my opinion, it is quite impossible to support the order.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' case is this. Defendant No.1, in 1926, set aside a sum of one lakh of rupees for establishing and maintaining a hospital at Bagar, a town in Jaipur State, for providing free medical relief to the poor. That sum has subsequently been largely increased, and we are told that defendant No.1 has altogether contributed something like eight lakhs to this charitable purpose, On April 26, 1926, defendant No.1 and others, who, I suppose, were acting as trustees, executed a declaration of trust agreeing to apply the trust funds in their hands in establishing and maintaining a hospital or hospitals in Bagar, and Clause 3 provides as follows : THE said trust moneys, securities, investments and the properties forming part of the trusts shall be called Shivnarayan Juharmal Bagar Hospital Trust Fund and the Hospital or Hospitals established by the trustees out of the trust funds shall be called Shivnarayan Juharmal Bagar Hospital or Hospitals.

(3.) NOW, apart from the fact that this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the administration of a foreign charity, there is this further difficulty. The only breach of trust relied on is the change in the names of the fund and the hospital ; but whether that is a breach of trust or not depends on the law of Jaipur State, and there is no evidence as to what is the law of Jaipur State. So far as British India is concerned, it is, I think, the law that trustees would not be justified in changing the name of a charity without the permission of the Court. It might be permissible to assume that the law of Jaipur State would not permit an act contra bonos mores, but we cannot assume without evidence that that law does not permit trustees of a charity to change its name. It appears that defendant No.1 and the other trustees have actually presented a petition to a Court in Jaipur State asking for permission to change the name of this charity, and that petition appears to be pending. Mr. Justice Chagla considered that the presentation of that petition was an act in defiance to this Court; but I am quite unable to take that view, because it seems to me that the Jaipur Court is the only Court which can sanction the change of the name of this charity.