RAMAKRISHNA MATH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : -An application under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 read with Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act was filed by Swami Prajanananda praying for an order transferring the assets and properties belonging to Ramkrishna Vivekanand Ashram, Ghatshila in favour of Ramkrishna Math, Belur to be utilized for the objects and purposes as decided by the trustee of Ramkrishna Math, Belur as they think best and proper without any condition, restriction, obligation or charge and on such transfer, the trust created by one Sushila Bala Ghosh be dissolved and the applicant, alleged to be the sole trustee of Ramakrishna Vivekanand Ashram, be discharged free from all acts, duties and obligations under the deed of trust executed by Sushila Bala Ghosh and to pass other appropriate orders as deemed fit. The District Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur by order dated 29.7.99 took the view that the prayers were made by a person who claimed to be the trustee and the question whether he was the trustee appeared to be a complicated one not capable of being decided in a proceeding under Section 7 of Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 read with Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act and the prayers made in the application also required to be tried elaborately and decided and hence, the application was not maintainable. In short, that Court took the view that the questions that had to be decided could not be decided in a summary way in a proceeding under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920. Thus, the application was dismissed. Challenging the said dismissal, Swami Prajanananda filed the Writ Petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2027 of 2000 before this Court. The Ramakrishna Math, Belur was impleaded as Respondent no. 3 in the Writ Petition. Pending the Writ Petition, Swami Prajanananda died. Thereupon Ramakrishna Math, Belur (Respondent no. 3 in the Writ Petition) was transposed as the Petitioner. At the subsequent hearing of the Writ petition, the learned Single Judge after a consideration of the relevant aspects, came to the conclusion that the District Judge was justified in holding that the questions to be decided could not satisfactorily be decided in an application under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act and that the question could not also be satisfactorily decided in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in that situation, the Petitioner had to approach the appropriate Court for relief, if the Petitioner is so inclined. Thus, the Writ Petition was dismissed. The dismissal of the Writ Petition thus, is challenged in this Appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Appellant took us elaborately through the various provisions of the Indian Trusts Act with special emphasis on Sections 71, 73 and 74 thereof to contend that in a proceeding under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, which is in pari matera with Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, the questions sought to be raised could be decided and even an order for sale of the trust properties could be made. Counsel relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Nilima vs. Prakriti Bhusan, A.I.R. 1982 Calcutta 14 and that of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Prince Muffakham Jah Bahadur vs. H.E.H. Nawab Mir Barkar Ali Khan Bhadur, AIR 1989 A.P. 68. In addition to these decisions, we have also to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Official Trustee W.B. and Ors. Vs. Sachindra Nath Chatterjee and Ors., AIR 1969 SC 823 which clearly indicates the restrictions on the power of the Court when it is moved under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act and which is authority for the proposition that in a proceeding under that Section, there were certain orders that could not be passed and that restriction was inherent in the Section itself.

(3.) THUS , on a consideration of the relevant aspects, without going into it in too much detail lest we prejudice any fresh proceeding that may be initiated, we are inclined to agree with the trial court and the learned Single Judge that the questions sought to be raised cannot be decided in this proceeding and the relief sought for could not be granted in such an application or in exercise of a jurisdiction which is seen to be only advisory. Suffice it to say that, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. We therefore, confirm that decision and dismiss this appeal but without prejudice to rights of those, who are entitled to do so, to initiate any other appropriate proceeding or to file a suit for the reliefs now claimed.