RAMESHWAR PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. RAMESHWAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first question which needs decision is whether the trust is rightly held to be a public trust. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant laid much emphasis on the facts that in construction of the Dharamshala no donation was received from public. In the precinct of the dharamshala deities are installed in a temple and memorials of the two brothers as founders of the trust have also been erected. There was exclusive possession and management of the trust property with the founder when alive and after him by the defendant as his adopted son.

(2.) WE were taken through the relevant portions of oral and documentary evidence on the above issue by the parties. In our considered opinion, the decision of the trial Court on the above issue cannot successfully be questioned. There is no written deed of trust. The nature of the trust has, therefore,necessarily to be determined by inference from the nature of the institution, nature of the user of the property and the way in which the institution was administered. [See Narayan Bhagwantrao GosaviBalaji Wale v. Gopal Vinayakgosavi and others (AIR 1960 SC 100). It is apparent that the founders of the trust in this case built a dharamshala with a charitable purpose of providing facilities of staying and lodging to the villagers and travellers. The beneficiaries are obviously general public. One of the important test of ascertaining whether the trust is a private or public to be found out whether the beneficiaries are specific individuals or the general public. In the former case it is a private and in the latter a public trust. [See -Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar and others (AIR 1957SC 133)1. The manner in which the dharamshala was administered during life time of Ram Sahai unmistakenly reveal the nature of the trust as being public. The ex -ruler of Rewa made available the land free of cost for construction of the dharamshala because public was to be benefited by it. It was formally inaugurated for public use. A public function was organized to honour Ram Sahai for his generous and charitable deed. A title of 'Danveer' was publicly conferred on him in the function and a letter of appreciation 'ABHINANDAN PATRA . was read for the spirit of dedication and service which he showed in constructing the dharamshala. Ram Sahai during his life time managed the dharamshala with the active help and support of members of the Agarwal community. For that purpose he had formed an internal managing committee of the dharamshala. From conspectus of all the above facts, the finding of the trial Court that the trust was public in nature is un - assailable.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the dharamshala after its construction was formally inaugurated for public use, on 5.4.1941. At that time Agarwal Samaj was not a registered body and had no legal status. It came to be registered as a society only on 18.10.1968. It is inconceivable that Ram Sahai as founder of the trust by calling a meeting of the Agarwal Samaj and constituting an inner managing committee by election with plaintiff as its Secretary intended to entrust the whole management and administration of the trust for all times to the said members of the Agarwal Samaj. During life time of Ram Sahai, the Agarwal Samaj was an unregistered body, with no legal status. It was, at that time,merely a congragation of persons belonging to Agarwal Community. The founder had not evolved any scheme of management oft he trust through the Agarwal Samaj to be a permanent arrangement for ever. Merely because during his life time he had associated the members of the Agarwal Samaj for the management of the dharamshala, an inference cannot be drawn of an intention on his part that he desired to entrust the management of the dharamshala to the Agarwal Samaj. There is ample evidence on record which has been duly discussed by the trial Judge that the founder himself during his life time and his widow never completely divested themselves of their right to participate in the management of the trust property. They continued to be in effective management of the dharamshala. From the above conduct of the settler and his heirs, the plaintiff cannot setup a case that the Agarwal Samaj, which consisted of a fluctuating body of uncertain members of the Agarwal Community was appointed as de jure or de facto trustee. AIR 1960 SC 100 and AIR 1957 SC 133 followed. Appeal dismissed.