0

The Bombay High court upheld the legality of the share distribution and computation 

Blog , , ,

CASE TITLE- Kamlakar Purushotam Inamdar and others Vs Smt. Rajani Shriram Madiwale and others

CASE NUMBER- Second Appeal No.335 Of 2015

DATED ON- 14.06.2024

QUORAM- Hon’ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiff sought partition and the suit properties were owned by the propositus Purshottam Govind Inamdar who expired on 16th August 1971 leaving behind him surviving as his legal heirs his wife Rukminibai, sons Arvind and Kamlakar and the Plaintiffs who are the daughters. In the year 1981 their mother Rukminibai expired and after her death the Plaintiffs are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit properties. The Plaintiff Nos 1, 2 and 3 got married in the year 1952, 1955 and 1971 respectively and thus were not entitled to claim 1/4th share in the property. The Defendants contented that there had been a partition in 1981, which the Plaintiffs denied. The Defendants claimed the properties had been divided, with Gat No. 149 allotted to Defendant No. 1 and the Padali properties to Arvind. The Plaintiffs and other Defendants disagreed, leading to various depositions about the ancestral and self-acquired nature of the properties and the validity of the alleged 1981 partition.

ISSUES RAISED

  • Whether the finding of the 1st Appellate Court that the suit property was the self-acquired property is based on misreading of the evidence on record and the evidence which has come on record?
  • Whether on proper appreciation of the evidence the Plaintiff can be stated to have discharged the burden of proving that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties?
  • Whether the Courts have properly interpreted amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, while granting equal share to the Plaintiffs?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  • Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act 1956
  • Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the property at Padali was ancestral property and out of the income of ancestral property, property at Kashidwadi has been purchased. The Plaintiffs did not plead about the nature of properties in the plaint. The Appellate Court erred in holding that there was no controversy about the nature of the properties. The evidence on record is more than sufficient to demonstrate that there was dispute between the parties as regards the property at Kashidwadi whereas the accepted case was that the property at Padali is joint family property. It was contented that the Appellate Court has held the properties to be self-acquired properties and thereby given equal share to the parties which suffers from perversity. It is submitted that by application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC which is filed in the present proceedings the death certificate of Indira is annexed which shows the date of death prior to 2005. It is submitted that if the property at Kashidwadi is held to be the self-acquired property the same would devolve upon the parties in accordance with the intestate succession and in accordance with general rules of succession as per Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act 1956.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Based on the facts produced during the trial, the respondent in this matter claims that the lower court correctly classified the properties, Kashidwadi and Padali, as ancestral and self-acquired, respectively. They contend that in figuring out the characteristics of these properties and the parties’ rights, the lower court correctly used the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The respondent argues that the appellant’s objection to this classification is without merit and is predicated on an incorrect rea

ding of the relevant legal precedents and supporting data. They further contend that the lower court’s computation of the shares was precise and compliant with all relevant regulations, especially the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The respondent highlights that the lower court appropriately determined the parties’ rights, including the rights of the departed ancestor Indira, and ensured an equal division in accordance with the laws governing succession. As a result, the respondent rejects the appeal and aims to maintain the lower court’s rulings about the division of property, shares, and the application of pertinent laws.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court considered the appeal in the context of the 1956 Hindu Succession Act, paying special attention to the 2005 modifications. After much deliberation, it was determined that Padali was ancestral and Kashidwadi was a property that Purushotam had self-acquired. In order to determine whether the properties were correctly classified, the court carefully examined the evidence. It dismissed the appellant’s argument and confirmed the lower court’s ruling that Kashidwadi was self-acquired and Padali was ancestral. The court upheld the allocation of shares made by the lower court in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act of 1956. It was determined that each of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 was entitled to a 7/36th stake in Padali, while the defendants Nos. 4 through 6 were entitled to a 7/36th share jointly, and the defendants Nos. 7 and 8 to a 1/36th share collectively. The court upheld the legality of the share distribution and computation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shreyasi Ghatak

0

Supreme Court quashed the entire proceeding of money recovery based on unethical transactions

Blog , ,

CASE TITLE- Deepak Kumar Shrivas & Anr. Appellant(S) Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

CASE NUMBER- Criminal Appeal No. Of 2024 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9800 Of 2023

DATED ON- 19.02.2024

QUORUM- Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant made a complaint alleging that the respondent no.6 had allured the appellant that she would secure a job for his brother as she had good contacts with higher officers and demanded substantial amount for doing this favour. The appellant paid Rs. 80,000/- cash at the first instance. Later on an additional demand was made and the appellant, he has deposited about Rs. 20,000/- and odd in different bank accounts. When no job was provided to his brother, he approached the respondent no.6 for returning the money paid by him upon which she threatened him of false implication and started avoiding him. The report made by superintendent of police showed that both the parties were accusing each other of having extracted money for securing job for their relatives. It appears that the appellant had taken about Rs.4 lacs from her for securing a job for her daughter and no job was provided by the appellant to her daughter moreover, the appellant and respondent failed to produce the relevant documents. The respondent filed an FIR against the appellant accordingly. The appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Chhattisgarh for quashing the FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom. The said petition has since been dismissed by the impugned order giving rise to filing of the present appeal.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

No statute or legal provisions were referred before the court of law for reaching the ultimate decision.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an enquiry was conducted in which similar allegations against each other were made by both the sides which were not found to be substantiated and, therefore, lodging of the impugned FIR after about one year of the said enquiry, is mala fide and an abuse of the process of law. Further, the impugned FIR has been maliciously lodged only to resist the appellant from recovering the amount paid by him to the respondent no.6. It is also submitted that the FIR has been after more than three years and, therefore, on the ground of delay, the alleged FIR deserves to be quashed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the investigation must be allowed to continue and if ultimately the police report is submitted finding the appellant prima facie guilty of the charge on the basis of the evidence collected during the investigation, the appellant would have adequate remedy of assailing the charge sheet and also claiming discharge at the stage of framing of charges. There is no justification for scuttling the investigation which may ultimately not only deprive the respondent no.6 of her money but also the offence committed by the appellant would go unpunished. It was also submitted that it was a clear case of cheating as the appellant had deceitfully induced the respondent no.6.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court observed that, respondent no.6 was well aware of the complaint made by the appellant. Despite the same she did not lodge any complaint against the appellant and his brother and waited for more than a year to lodge the FIR. The entire material was totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was being paid for securing a job. The police should exercise caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which need investigations. The criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where the object to lodge the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing the offender for the offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion pressure. Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and quashed the entire proceedings.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shreyasi Ghatak

0

Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence in Kerala Uxoricide Case.

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , ,

Anil Kumar v State of Kerala.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2697 of 2023.

Date: November 01, 2023.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. Abhay S. Oka, J. Pankaj Mithal.

 

Facts of the case

The appeal was filed when the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000 and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 498A IPC. The appellant allegedly threw a lit matchstick on his wife after she poured kerosene over herself due to the quarrel.

Initially, the case was registered under Section 307 of IPC as it was stated that the wife was tired of the torture and wanted to end everything. The appellant took advantage of the situation. The charge changed to 302 and 498 after she died in the hospital, and her husband was charged with uxoricide. The children of the couple testified that the appellant had the habit of hitting their wife.

Legal Issue

Whether there was a premeditated mind to kill or was it merely grave and sudden provocation resulting in the action?

Legal provisions

Indian Penal Code:

  • 300 – Murder and when culpable homicide is not murder.
  • 302 – Punishment for murder.
  • 304 – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
  • 307 – Attempt to murder.
  • 498A – Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

 

Contentions of appellant

The learned counsel for the appellant defended that he was not guilty of burning his wife. She had suicidal tendencies and had made several attempts to do it. He did the act due to the grave and sudden provocation caused by the quarrel. Later, he tried to prevent her from doing it the day by pouring a bucket of water, and therefore, he did not possess any premeditated mind to kill. Thus, these Sections are not applicable; at best, he can be charged under Section 304 part II of IPC. They argued that it was due to grave and sudden provocation and that there was no premeditated intention to kill.

Contentions of the respondent

The learned counsel of the respondent opposed this and argued that the appellant had burnt his wife with a matchstick, fully knowing she was drenched in kerosene oil and it would cause death. Additionally, the evidence of the witnesses clearly proves that the couple had petty arguments often and the husband tortured her, including the statement of the wife before passing away in the hospital. She had stated that he would assault her after getting drunk and threw light on the pending criminal cases against the appellant.

Judgement and analysis

The Supreme Court of India held that the evidence and dying declaration of the wife clearly points to the fact that the appellant had a clear intention to kill her and had taken advantage of the situation in which his wife was drenched in kerosene. The testimony of the neighbour helped in establishing that there was a substantial amount of time between the quarrel and setting on fire. Therefore, the appellant is guilty of the offense of culpable homicide amounting to murdered and is not entitled to exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.

Thus, the Court upheld the decisions of lower courts and was of the opinion that the courts did not commit any error of fact or law in convicting and sentencing the appellant to a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. They dismissed the appeal due to lack of merits.

Judgment reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

Mere Mention in Suicide Note Insufficient for Abetment Charge: Supreme Court.

Blog, Supreme court , , , , , , , ,

Vikas Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.__________ of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1196/2018).

Date: February 22, 2024.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. C.T. Ravikumar, J. Rajesh Bindal.

Facts of the Case:

The case concerns the death by suicide of Brijesh Chandra, father of the appellant Vikas Chandra. Brijesh Chandra was a retired military man working as a security guard at Mandi Samiti, Puwaya. The respondent Ram Babu Sharma was the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti at the time.

According to the complaint filed by Vikas Chandra, his father’s salary from March 2004 to August 2004 and September 2004 onwards was not paid. On October 12, 2004, when Brijesh Chandra requested the release of his salary, Ram Babu Sharma allegedly told him: “I will see that how will you get your salary and who will help you in getting your salary, I will bring out your military-man-ship and either you die or your children, but I do not care, get out of here, why you do not take poison”.

On October 23, 2004, Brijesh Chandra committed suicide by consuming poison in the office of Sub-Mandi, Alhaganj, where he was working at the time. He left a suicide note allegedly attributing responsibility for his suicide to Ram Babu Sharma.

Initially, the complainant approached the court of the Judicial Magistrate, but the complaint was not forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The matter was taken up in revision and eventually to the High Court. Based on the High Court’s orders, an FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment of suicide.

After investigation, the police filed a closure report. The Magistrate did not accept this report and conducted an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC based on a protest petition filed by the complainant. Subsequently, the Magistrate issued summons to Ram Babu Sharma to face trial for the offense under Section 306 IPC.

Ram Babu Sharma challenged this summons order in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court quashed the summons order, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in quashing the summons issued against the respondent?

Whether the High Court exceeded the settled guidelines and parameters for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC?

Whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence to issue summons for the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC?

Legal Provisions:

  1. Indian Penal Code:
  • Section 306 IPC – Abetment of suicide.
  • Section 107 IPC – Abetment.

  1. Code of Criminal Procedure:
  • Section 156(3) CrPC – Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case.
  • Section 173(2) CrPC – Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
  • Section 190 CrPC – Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.
  • Section 202 CrPC – Postponement of issue of process.
  • Section 204 CrPC – Issue of process.
  • Section 482 CrPC – Saving of inherent powers of High Court.

Contentions of petitioners:

The appellant strongly argued that the High Court had committed a grave error in law by quashing the summons issued against the respondent. They contended that the Magistrate’s decision to issue summons was based on sufficient prima facie evidence and should not have been interfered with by the High Court. The appellant asserted that the High Court had exceeded the settled guidelines and parameters for exercising power under Section 482 CrPC. They argued that the High Court’s power to quash proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is a clear abuse of the process of law.

The appellant maintained that there was ample prima facie evidence to justify the issuance of summons for the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

They pointed to the following elements:

  • The alleged threatening and instigative remarks made by the respondent on October 12, 2004.
  • The non-payment of salary, which they argued created circumstances that led to the suicide.
  • The suicide notes mentioning the respondent’s name and attributing responsibility to him.

The appellant argued that given the serious nature of the allegations and the existence of prima facie evidence, the matter deserved a full trial. They contended that quashing the summons at this stage would prevent a proper investigation into the circumstances of Brijesh Chandra’s death.

The appellant argued for a broader interpretation of the suicide note, suggesting that even if it didn’t explicitly mention the October 12 incident, the overall content implied abetment by the respondent.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondents argued that the summoning order was issued without satisfying the grounds required under law. They contended that mere mention of a name in a suicide note does not automatically amount to abetment of suicide. They argued that the Magistrate’s order did not reflect proper application of mind to form an opinion regarding sufficient basis for proceeding against the respondent. They pointed out that the order lacked detailed reasoning for issuing the summons. The respondents emphasized that there was no material suggesting instigation by the respondent in the suicide note. They argued that for abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or creation of circumstances that left no option but suicide. They pointed out the significant time gap (11 days) between the alleged instigation and the suicide, arguing that this weakened any case for abetment. They also contended that there was no evidence of a continued course of conduct that could be seen as abetment.

The respondents highlighted that the alleged incident of October 12, 2004, which formed the basis of the complaint, was not mentioned in the suicide note. They argued that if this incident was indeed the trigger for the suicide, it would have been mentioned. They further argued that allowing the case to proceed based on such flimsy evidence would amount to misuse of the criminal process and cause undue harassment to the respondent. They contended that the High Court’s use of power under Section 482 CrPC was justified to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice.

Analysis of the judgement:

In its judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the summons order. The Court reaffirmed that while a Magistrate has the power to issue summons even after a closure report is filed by the police, this power must be exercised judiciously. It emphasized that issuing summons is a serious matter that affects an individual’s dignity and reputation, and therefore should not be done mechanically but only upon satisfaction of sufficient grounds for proceeding.

The Court clarified that for an offense under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), there must be specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC, with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned. In this case, the Court found no explicit or implicit reference in the suicide note to the alleged incident of October 12, 2004, or any instigation by the respondent. The significant time gap of 11 days between the alleged instigation and the suicide further weakened the case for abetment. The Court held that the mere statement in the suicide note that the respondent would be responsible for the suicide was not sufficient ground to issue summons for an offense under Section 306 IPC.

The judgement emphasized the need for careful judicial scrutiny before issuing summons in criminal cases, serving as a safeguard against arbitrary or mechanical issuance of summons. The Court’s clarification on the ingredients of abetment of suicide is vital, stressing that specific abetment with the intention to bring about the suicide is necessary, and mere attribution of responsibility in a suicide note is not sufficient.

The Court’s consideration of the lack of proximity between the alleged instigation and the suicide, as well as the absence of a continued course of conduct, as factors weakening the case for abetment, provides valuable guidance for similar cases. The judgment also offers insights into how suicide notes should be appreciated in the context of abetment charges, suggesting that courts should look for specific allegations and material of a definite nature, not merely inferences.

Conclusion

The decision serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise their powers judiciously, especially in cases involving serious charges like abetment of suicide. It also provides guidance on how to appreciate evidence, particularly suicide notes, in such cases.

 

Reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.


Click here to read the Judgement.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

Beyond Technicalities: Supreme Court Adopts Justice-Oriented Approach in Trust Management.

Blog, Supreme court , , ,

Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi vs. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and Others.

Dated: April 25, 2024.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. A.S. Bopanna, J. Sanjay Kumar.

The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment dated April 25, 2024, delivered a significant ruling in the case of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi vs. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and others. The case revolves around the acceptance of Change Reports concerning the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, a Public Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

Facts of the case:

Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, was registered as a Public Trust in 1952 by Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil for the upkeep and maintenance of Shri Mallikarjun Temple at Shelgi. The mode of succession of managership and trusteeship, as provided in the application, was that Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil would be the Vahiwatdar of the Trust, and the eldest male member of his family would succeed him. After Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil’s death in 1992, his eldest son, Ashok Mallikarjun Patil, became the Vahiwatdar. Subsequently, upon Ashok’s demise in 1997, his brother Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil, the third son of Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil, assumed the role of Vahiwatdar, although he was not the eldest male member in the family.

Legal issues:

  1. What is the effect of delay in filing a Change Report under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and whether such delay can be condoned? If so, what is the procedure for condonation of delay?
  2. Can mere devotees of a Temple, who have previously failed in challenging the registration of the Public Trust itself, legitimately object to the succession and appointment of the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of the Trust through the Change Report mechanism under the Act?

 

Legal provisions:

The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950

  • Section 17: Maintenance of books, indices, and registers containing particulars of Public Trusts.
  • Section 18: Registration of Public Trusts.
  • Section 22: Reporting of changes in the entries recorded in the register and the procedure for accepting such changes.
  • Section 70: Appeals against the findings or orders of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner.
  • Section 70A: Revision powers of the Charity Commissioner.

Contentions of petitioner:

The learned counsel of the petitioner Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil, being the third son of the founder Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil, filed a delay condonation application along with Change Report No. 899 of 2015, seeking condonation of the delay in filing the report to inform the authorities about his assumption as the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) of the Trust after the demise of his elder brother Ashok Mallikarjun Patil in 1997. Even though there was no specific proviso in Section 22(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (the Act) for condonation of delay before the 2017 amendment, the general provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be invoked for condonation of the delay in filing the Change Report.

The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, had already passed an order on January 29, 2019, holding that the delay in filing Change Report No. 899 of 2015 stood condoned by accepting the Change Report itself, thereby implying that the delay was excused. After the earlier dismissal of the revision filed by the Birajdar family challenging the very registration of the Trust, they had no legitimate grievance or locus standi as mere devotees to challenge the succession to the post of Vahiwatdar, which was a matter concerning the administration of the Trust by the founder’s family.

Contentions of respondents:

The learned counsel of the respondent Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil, being the third son, was not the eldest male member of the founder Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil’s family. Therefore, he had unlawfully and without any authority assumed the role of Vahiwatdar by filing Change Report No. 899 of 2015, circumventing the established mode of succession. The Deputy Charity Commissioner, Solapur, had failed to conduct a proper inquiry and had not passed a separate explicit order condoning the inordinate delay of over 17 years in filing Change Report No. 899 of 2015, as mandated under Section 22 of the Act, thereby rendering the acceptance of the Change Report illegal.

After the death of Ashok Mallikarjun Patil, the eldest son of the founder, the villagers were handling the functioning and administration of the Trust themselves, and Jagdishchandra was merely overseeing the Temple activities without any legal authority. The Trust, under the administration of Jagdishchandra and the Trustees appointed by him, was not taking proper care of the Temple and its activities, and therefore, the changes in the administration through the acceptance of Change Reports No. 899 of 2015 and No. 1177 of 2017 should not have been allowed.

The Judgment:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and confirmed the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017. The Court observed that the delay in filing a Change Report is curable, and the failure to file a Change Report within the stipulated time does not automatically invalidate the assumption of office by the Vahiwatdar or the changes in the Trust. The Act does not mandate that a separate written application be filed for condonation of delay. Relief can be granted upon an oral request, provided sufficient cause is shown. The proviso added to Section 22(1) in 2017, enabling the authority to condone the delay, is clarificatory and does not bring about a substantive change. Even before the amendment, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be invoked for condonation of delay.

The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, had already passed an order on January 29, 2019, holding that the delay had been condoned by accepting the Change Report. This order was not challenged by the Birajdar family and had attained finality. The devotees (Birajdar family) had a grievance with the very registration of the Trust, which had been dismissed earlier, and as mere devotees, they could not challenge the succession to the post of Vahiwatdar. If the Trust is not taking proper care of the Temple, separate statutory remedies are available under the Act, and the devotees should pursue those instead of repeatedly attacking the Change Reports.

The Court clarified that delay in filing a Change Report is not fatal and can be condoned upon showing sufficient cause. This ruling provides much-needed flexibility in the administration of Public Trusts, recognizing the practical realities and challenges faced by Trustees and Administrators. Furthermore, the Court rightly highlighted that mere devotees cannot disrupt the succession process, or the administration of a Trust based on personal grievances or ulterior motives. The statutory remedies available under the Act should be pursued for specific issues, rather than resorting to collateral attacks on the Trust’s administration.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a significant pronouncement on the administration of Public Trusts under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Court adopted a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, emphasizing that technicalities should not be allowed to override substantive justice. Overall, the judgment strikes a balanced approach, upholding the principles of transparency and accountability in the administration of Public Trusts while also ensuring that technical objections do not impede the smooth functioning of such Trusts.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

1 2