http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: SHAH CHHOTALAL LALLUBHAI AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHARITY COMMISSIONER, BOMBAY, AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/1965

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) DAYAL, RAGHUBAR RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION:  1965 AIR 1611            1965 SCR  (2) 811

ACT: Bombay  Public  Trusts  Act (29 of 1950),  ss.  55  and  56- Diversion of accumulation of trust funds-When permitted.

HEADNOTE: A testator, who professed the Jain religion, gave directions in his will that certain amounts should be spent annually on religious and charitable objects specified by him, and  that an  annual feast should be given to members of his caste  in certain  specified  villages.  He died in 1916 and  by  1955 there  was a large accumulation of unexpended income  mainly because  of  discontinuing the feast, and  so,  the  Charity sioner filed an application before the District Judge, under ss.  55(1)(b) and 56 of the Bombay Public Trusts  Act,  1950 for  directions  for  the  utilization  of  that  sum.   The District Judge directed a division of the amount between  an educational institution and a hospital.  The appellants, who were  of  the same caste as the testator  and  who  objected before  the  District  Judge to the  diversion  of  the  sum appealed to the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed. In  their  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court,  the  appellants challenged  the  propriety and legality  of  the  directions given by the District Judge and confirmed by the High Court. HELD : The directions should be set aside, as the respondent had  not made out a case for such diversion of trust  funds, and  the  directions were objectionable on the  ground  that they  did not take into account the original objects of  the trust. [821 H; 822 A] On  an application either under s. 55(1)(a) or  s.  55(1)(b) read  with s. 56(2) the Court is bound to give direction  in respect  of all public trusts.  Section 56(1) provides  that in giving the directions. the Court shall, so far as may  be expedient,  practicable, desirable, necessary or  proper  in the  public interest, give effect to the original  intention of the author of the trust or the object for which the trust was  created.   Under the latter part of s.  56(1),  if  the Court finds that the carrying out of the original  intention or  object  wholly or partially, is  neither  expedient  nor practicable  nor desirable nor necessary nor proper  in  the public interest, the court may direct the property or income

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

of  the trust or any portion thereof to be applied by  press to  any  other charitable or religious object.  One  of  the objects for which the trust was created in the instant case, was the annual feast to the members of the testator’s caste. Looking  at the interest of the community, it was  certainly expedient,  practicable,  desirable and proper to  give  the feast.   Even  if  it  was not a religious  act,  it  was  a meritorious  one prescribed by the scriptures of the  Jains. In  the  wider  public  interest  also  it  was   expedient, practicable, desirable and proper to respect the  sentiments and interests of that section of the Jain public and to give effect to the charity. [818 B-C, D-E, F, G-H] 812 Further,  the  overriding intention of the  founder  of  the trust was that the amount set apart by him should be devoted to the objects mentioned in the will, so that those  objects may  be continued and carried out for ever.   In  accordance with  the  intention of the founder the  surplus  should  be applied,  as  nearly as possible to the  original  uses  and purposes  of  the  trust.  The  savings  should  be  applied suitably  for carrying out the same objects in future or  to increase the amounts spendable for the surviving objects  of the trust, instead of diverting them for other purposes [820 C, F, H] [Suitable  directions  were given by the Court  in  lieu  of those set aside, for utilising the accumulations].

JUDGMENT: CIVIL,  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  634  of 1964. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and decree  dated January 25, 1957, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 620 of 1956. Gumanmal Lodha, J. S. Rastogi and J. B. Dadachanji, for  the appellants. P.   K. Chatterjee, B. R. G. K. Achar for R. H. Dhebar,  for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat.   J. One Jhaverchand Dahyabhai Shah died in  1916, leaving a will, dated August 6, 1915.  He was a resident  of Vejalpore  in  the suburbs of Broach and  a  Ladva  Shrimali Bania  by  caste.   He  professed  the  Jain  religion,  and believed in the tenets of the Swetembar Murti Pujak sect  of Jains.  By cl. (7) of the will, he directed his executors to spend out of the earnings of his shop every year during  the life-time  of his niece, Bai Jakore, the  amounts  mentioned below on the following religious objects               (1)   Rs.  100 for feeding cattle with  grass,               fodder,   oil  cakes  etc.,  in   the   Broach               Pinjrapole.               (2)   Rs.  100 for Jiva-daya Khata  (fund  for               kindness to animals).               (3)   Rs.  25  for offering  flowers  for  the               worship of Lord Rikabdev in the Jain temple at               Vejalpore, Broach.               (4)   Rs.  200 for providing food  to  Shravak               pilgrims at the Shatroonjaya Hill at Palitana.               (5)   Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at               Mount Girnar.               (6)   Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at               Mount Abu.               813               (7)   Rs.  250 for providing cereals,  clothes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

             etc., to Shravaks and Shravikas.               (8)   Rs.  100  for providing  cloth  to  Jain               Sadhus and Sadhavies.               (9)   Rs. 200 for education and food of  Hindu               orphans.               (10)  Rs.  200 for Jain Gyan Khata  (fund  for               imparting knowledge).               (11)  Rs.   100  for  feeding   Shravaks   and               Shravikas who have observed fast.               (12)  Rs. 300 for giving food, cloth etc.,  to               the  blind, lame and crippled members  of  the               Hindu Community. In  addition,  he  also directed his  executors  to  give  a Swamivatsal feast or meal consisting of methi-dal and  ladus made  of sugar to the members of his caste at  15  specified villages  and towns in the Broach and Surat Districts  every year on the occasion of the sacred festival of Pajusan.   By cl.  (15) of the will, he directed that after the  death  of his  niece,  Bai Jakore, a sum of Rs. 75,000 should  be  set apart by the executors, and out of the moneys so set  apart, suitable  amounts  should be sent to the  respective  Khatas (funds) in his name, so that the religious acts mentioned in cl. (7) be continued for ever. On  the  death  of Bai Jakore on May 20,  1928,  the  estate vested  in the residuary legatee, Bai Chanchal, daughter  of Bai  Jakore.   Mulchandbhai, husband of  Bai  Chanchal,  set apart Rs. 75,000 on trust for the purposes mentioned in  cl. (7)  of the win, and began to manage the trust estate.   Out of  the  trust moneys, he invested Rs. 8,000 in 5  per  cent tax-free Government Loan, 1944-45, yielding an annual income of Rs. 400, and pursuant to the directions given in cl. (15) of  the  will, handed over loans of the face  value  of  Rs. 4,000,  Rs. 1,000, Rs. 1,000, and Rs. 2,000 respectively  to four religious and charitable institutions in full discharge of  the obligation of the trust for expending  annually  the sums of Rs. 200, Rs. 50, Rs. 50 and Rs. 100 on items 2, 4, 5 and 6 of the religious purposes mentioned in cl. (7) of  the will.   On December 8, 1947, Bai Chanchal executed  a  trust deed in respect of the investments representing the  balance amount  of  Rs.  67,000 and an accumulation  of  surplus  or unexpended income amounting to Rs. 25,796-6-8.  The trust is registered as a public trust under the 814 Bombay  Public Trusts Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to  as the  Act.   The  trust deed  provided  that  the  unexpended accumulation  of  Rs.  25,796-6-8  should  be  applied   for establishing, maintaining and supporting a Nivas for housing the poor and middle-class provided that after setting  apart the  aforesaid sum of Ladva Shrimali Jains at low and  cheap rents.   The  trust deed also provided  that  after  setting apart the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,796-6-8 the balance  funds would  be  held  in trust for applying  its  income  to  the charities  mentioned in cl. (7) of the aforesaid will  other than items 2, 4, 5 and 6. Now, the trustees had no authority to divert any part of the trust fund for the purposes of the Nivas scheme.  The establishment of a Nivas for housing  the poor and middle-class Ladva Shrimali Jains is not one of the original  objects  of the trust.  As a matter of  fact,  the Nivas  scheme  was  not carried into  effect.   The  Charity Commissioner,  Bombay challenged the validity of  the  Nivas scheme.   The Courts below rightly proceeded on the  footing that  the  Nivas  scheme  is  invalid.   Subsequent  to  the execution  of the trust deed, there were  further  accumula- tions  of  unexpended income.  The Swamivatsal  feasts  were given,  and the fixed annual payments to all  the  charities

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

were duly met up to Samvat year 1999 corresponding to  1942- 1943  A.D.  During the subsequent years,  the  fixed  annual payments to the charities were duly made, but on account  of rationing restrictions, the feasts could not be given up  to Samvat year 2010 corresponding to 1953-1954 A.D. During  the Samvat year 2011 corresponding to 1954-1955 A.D., the  feast was  not  given  in  spite  of  the  removal  of   rationing restrictions.   The trustees allege that the current  income of the trust fund after disbursing the fixed annual payments is  not  sufficient  to meet the usual  expenses  of  annual feasts.  On June 3, 1955, the Charity Commissioner filed  an application  before  the  District Judge,  Broach  under  S. 55(1)(b)  and S. 56 of the Act for suitable  directions  for the  utilisation  of  the accumulations  of  the  unexpended income  of  the  trust for some  educational  purpose.   The trustees were impleaded as respondents to this  application. Pursuant  to  a  general notice issued  by  the  Court,  the appellants  and  four other members of  the  Ladva  Shrimali Shravak  Bania  Community  in  Broach  and  Surat  Districts appeared,  and  intervened  in the  application.   On  their behalf,  it was contended that the trust was  for  religious purposes  and  its  funds could not be  diverted  for  other purposes  under ss. 55 (1) (b) and 56 of the Act,  and  that the  accumulations  should be utilised year after  year  for meeting  the deficit amount required for the  annual  swami- vatsal feasts. The District Judge held that the provisions of s. 56 of the 815 Act did not apply to the funds of a public religious  trust, and if the accumulations were held for a religious  purpose, the Court could not give any directions for its  utilisation under  that  section,  that the  Swamivatsal  feast  confers religious benefits and objects Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and  11 1  are  also  religious in character,  while  the  remaining objects  are charitable, and therefore the entire feast  was not  of a religious character, but assuming that  the  trust was  wholly  religious, the accumulation was  not  held  for religious purposes, and was subject to the directions of the Court as to its utilisation under s. 56 read with s. 55  (1) (b)  of the Act.  He also held that the trustees  could  not save  any  moneys in future by simply refusing to  give  the Swamivatsal feasts but it was not in the public interest  to provide   for  the  expenses  of  the  feast  out   of   the accumulation,  and  the  accumulation should  be  spent  for educational and medical purposes.  The District Judge passed final  orders  on  October  25, 1956.   On  that  date,  the accumulation of unexpended income amounted to Rs. 45,019-14- 0,  besides another sum of Rs. 107-2-0.  The District  Judge directed the trustees to hand over a sum of Rs.  22,505-15-0 to  an institution known as the Sad Vidya Mandal for  giving four freeships every year to deserving students, who  should preferably  be  Jains of Broach District  and  failing  such deserving  cases, to other Hindu students.  Subject  to  the condition of giving freeships, the Sad Vidya Mandal would be at liberty to spend the amount for purposes of the  building of  the  College  or  its  hostel  or  in  providing   other educational  facilities to the students.  He  also  directed the  trustees to pay another sum of Rs. 22,509-15-0  to  the trustees  of the Sevashram Hospital at Broach  on  condition that  the amount be invested in any approved trust  security and  its income be utilised in providing  maintenance,  food and  medicine to poor and deserving patients.   He  directed the  payment  of the remaining sum of  Rs.  107-2-0  towards costs. The  appellants and two other members of the Ladva  Shrimali

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

Shravak  Bania Community preferred an appeal to  the  Bombay High Court.  The High Court held that the Court could on  an application  under  s.  55  of  the  Act  deviate  from  the directions of the settler, even if the purpose of the  trust has   not  failed,  where  the  Court  finds  that   it   is inexpedient,  impracticable,  undesirable,  unnecessary   or improper in the public interest to abide by his  directions, but  the Court could exercise this power only in respect  of funds of a public trust which was not a trust for  religious purposes.   The  High Court held that none of  the  purposes mentioned in cl. (7) of the will except the one mentioned in item  3 of the clause could be regarded as  religious,  that the object of providing funds for annual Swamivatsal  feasts was charitable and 816 not religious, and that the Court was, therefore,  competent to  entertain the application under s. 55.  The  High  Court further  held that providing a feast to. the members of  the caste  even  on the occasion of a religious festival  or  on days  which  may  be  regarded as  holy  is  not  expedient, desirable,  necessary or proper in the public interest,  and the  directions  of the District Judge with  regard  to  the distribution of the fund should not be interfered with.  The High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal.  The appellants now  appeal to this Court by special leave.  They  challenge the  propriety and the legality of the directions  given  by the District Judge below, and repeat the submissions made on their  behalf in the Courts below.  The respondents  contend that  the aforesaid directions were rightly given under  ss. 55(1)(b) and 56 of the Act. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was passed on August  14, 1950, with a view to regulate and make better provision  for the administration of public religious and charitable trusts in the State of Bombay.  Soon after the Act came into force, its  constitutional  validity  was  assailed.   In   Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay and Others(1),  this Court  held  that a religious sect or denomination  has  the right  guaranteed  by  the Constitution to  manage  its  own affairs in matters of religion, and this includes the  right to  spend the trust property or its income for religion  and for religious purposes and objects indicated by the  founder of  the trust or established by usage obtaining in a  parti- cular  institution.  To divert the trust property  or  funds for  purposes  which the Charity Commissioner or  the  Court considers expedient or proper, although the original objects of  the founder can still be carried out, is an  unwarranted encroachment  on  the freedom of religious  institutions  in regard  to  the management of their  religious  affairs  and therefore   s.  55(1)(c),  which  contains   the   offending provision  and the corresponding provision relating  to  the powers of the Court occurring in the latter part of s. 56(1) must  be  held to be void.  Subsequently, Bombay Act  59  of 1954  amended s. 55 (1) (c) by excluding from its purview  a trust  for a religious purpose.  Sections 55 and 56  of  the Bombay Trusts Act, 1950, as they stand now, are as follows :               "55. (1) If upon an application made to him or               otherwise  the  Charity  Commissioner  is   of               opinion that-               (a)   the original object for which the public               trust was created has failed,               (1) [1954] S. C. R. 1055,1070-1072.               817               (b)   the income or any surplus balance of any               public  trust has not been utilized or is  not               likely to be utilized,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             (c)   in the case of a public trust other than               a trust for a religious purpose, it is not  in               public   interest   expedient,    practicable,               desirable,  necessary or proper to  carry  out               wholly or partially the original intention  of               the  author of the public trust or the  object               for  which  the public trust was  created  and               that the property or the income of the  public               trust or any portion thereof should be applied               to any other charitable or religious object,               (d)   in   any  of  the  cases  mentioned   in               sections  10  to  13  or  in  regard  to               the appropriation of the dharmada sums held in               trust  under section 54 the directions of  the               Court are necessary,               the  Charity  Commissioner shall  require  the               trustee  to apply within the  prescribed  time               for  directions to the Court within the  local               limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part               of the subject-matter of the trust is situate.               (2)   If   the  trustees  fail  to  make   the               application as required under sub-section  (1)               or  if the Charity Commissioner himself  is  a               trustee  or  if  there is no  trustee  of  the               public  trust, the Charity Commissioner  shall               make an application to the Court.               56.   (1) On such application being made,  the               court after hearing the parties and making  an               inquiry shall decide the matter and shall give               directions.   In  giving the  directions,  the               court,  shall,  so far as  may  be  expedient,               practicable, desirable, necessary or proper in               public  interest, give effect to the  original               intention of the author of the public trust or               the  object  for which the  public  trust  was               created.  If the court is of opinion that  the               carrying  out of such intention or  object  is               not  desirable, necessary or proper in  public               interest the court may direct the property  or               income  of  the public trust  or  any  portion               thereof  to  be applied by pres to  any  other               charitable or religious object.  In doing  so,               it shall be lawful for the court to alter  any               scheme already settled or to vary the terms of               any decree or order already passed in  respect               of   the  public  trust  or   the   conditions               contained  in  the instrument  of  the  public               trust.               (2)   Any  decision  or order  passed  by  the               Court under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to               be a decree               818               of   such  court  and  an  appeal  shall   lie               therefrom to the High Court." Section  2(13) of the Act provides that unless there is  any thing  repugnant  in the subject or  context,  public  trust means  an express or constructive trust for either a  public religious  or charitable purpose or both.  Section 5  5  (1) (c)  expressly  excludes from its operation a  trust  for  a religious  purpose.  But ss. 55(1) (a) and 55(1)(b)  do  not exclude  religious  trusts from their  operation,  and  they apply  to  all public trusts for  religious  and  charitable purposes.   On an application either under S. 55 (1) (a)  or s. 55 (1) (b) read with S. 56(2), the Court is bound to give directions  in respect of all public trusts.  Section  56(1)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

provides that in giving the directions, the Court shall,  so far  as may be expedient, practicable, desirable,  necessary or  proper  in  the  public interest,  give  effect  to  the original intention of the author of the trust or the  object for  which the trust was created.  The conjunction  "or"  in this  sentence introduces several alternatives.   The  Court must give effect to the original intention or object if  and so  far  as  it may be either expedient  or  practicable  or desirable or proper or necessary to do so.  If, for example, the Court finds that it is proper in the public interest  to give  effect  to the original object, the  Court  must  give effect  to  it, though it is not necessary to do so  in  the public interest.  Under the latter part of s. 56(1), if  the Court finds that the carrying out of the original  intention or  object  wholly  or partially is  neither  expedient  nor practicable nor desirable nor necessary nor proper in public interest, the Court may direct the property or income of the trust  or any portion thereof to be applied ’by pres to  any other charitable or religious object.  The latter part of S. 56(1)  thus permits the diversion of trust funds  for  other objects,  though  the original objects of  the  founder  can still  be  carried out.  But we think that  the  respondents have  made out no case for such a diversion of trust  funds. One of the objects for which the trust was created was  that a  Swamivatsal  feast to the members of the  Ladva  Shrimali Bania  caste should be given every year on the  occasion  of the  holy festival of Pajusan.  The Jains of Ladva  Shrimali Shravak Bania Community are the chief beneficiaries of  this trust.    Looking  at  their  interest,  it   is   certainly expedient,  practicable,  desirable and proper to  give  the feast.   The giving and taking of the Swamivatsal  feast  on the  occasion  of  the holy festival of Pajusan,  if  not  a religious act. is a meritorious act prescribed by the scrip- tures  of  Swetambar Murti Pujak Jains.   The  wider  public interest  does not require that this special charity  for  a section   of  the  lain  public  should  be  subverted   and overthrown.  In the wider public                             819 interest  also, it is expedient, practicable, desirable  and proper  to,  respect the sentiments and  interests  of  this section  of  the  Jain public and to  give  effect  to  this charity,  and we find no reason for giving directions  under the latter part of s. 56(1).  We, therefore, propose to give directions under the first part of s. 56(1). In  this view of the matter, it is not necessary to  decide, whether the trust is a trust for religious purposes, and  if so,  whether, having regard to Ratilal Panachand’s  case(’,) its income or surplus balance spendable for the purposes  of the  trust  can be diverted for other purposes,  though  the original object of the trust can still be carried out.   ’Me question whether or not the objects mentioned in cl. (7)  of the  will  are  religious  objects  is  not  raised  in  the pleadings.   No issues were framed and no evidence was  led’ on this point by either party.  What are religious  purposes must  be  decided  according to  the  tenets  and  religious beliefs  of  the Murti Pujak Swetambara sect  of  Jains,  to which the testator belonged.  It is difficult to decide  the point  in  the  absence of relevant  pleadings,  issues  and evidence.   The  District Judge held  that  the  Swamivatsal feast  and  many other objects are religious  objects.   The High Court too lightly brushed aside this finding.   Chapter IX   of  the  Report  of  the  Hindu  Religious   Endowments Commission  (1960-62) contains an interesting discussion  of Jain  endowments.  Paragraphs 7 to 1 1 of Chap.  IX  of  the Report refer to seven types of religious funds  specifically

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

recognised  by  the  Jain scriptures  concerning  (1)  Jeena Bimba,  (2)  Jeena Chaitya, (3) Gyan Fund,  (4)  Sadhu,  (5) Sadhvi,  (6) Shravak and (7) Shravika.  The Jains  recognise numerous  other  endowments  or funds for  the’  general  or specific purposes, the corpus or interest of which is to  be utilised  as  per  the  donor’s  intentions.   The  question whether  the  several  objects of the  trust  including  the giving  of  a  Swamivatsal  feast  are  religious  in  their character must be left open for future decision. We  must now consider what directions should be given  under s. 56 on the present application.  No case for applying  the latter  part of s. 56(1) and for refusing to give effect  to the  original  objects of the trust has been made  out.   We should, therefore, give effect to the original intention  of the founder as far as that intention can be carried out.  If the  method indicated by the founder cannot be carried  out, the Court will substitute another method by pres, that is to say,  as nearly as possible to the method specified  by  the founder.   The  application  of the  by  pres  principle  is explained  in Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, 3rd  Edn.,  Art. 1176, p.  494 thus : (1) [1954] S. C. R. 1055, 82 0               "The  doctrine  of  by  pres  as  applied   to               charities  was  formerly  pushed  to  a   most               extravagant   length.    But   this   sensible               distinction  now prevails that the Court  will               not  decree  the execution of the trust  of  a               charity  in  a  manner  different  from   that               intended, except so far as it is seen that the               intention  cannot be literally  executed.   In               that  case  another  mode  will  be   adopted,               consistent  with the general intention, so  as               to  execute it, although not in mode,  yet  in               substance.   If  the  mode  should  become  by               subsequent   circumstances   impossible,   the               general  object is not to be defeated,  if  it               can in any other way be attained." In the instant case, the overriding intention of the founder of the trust is that the sum of Rs. 75,000 set apart by  him should be devoted to the objects mentioned in cl. (7) of the will, so that those objects may be continued and carried out for  ever.   His  intention was that fixed  sums  should  be expended annually for the 12 items of charity mentioned  and reasonable  sums  should  be  expended  annually  in  giving Swamivatsal  feasts  to  members  of  his  caste.   The  sum spendable  annually  for  the feast  was  necessarily  of  a fluctuating  character.  In accordance with  the  directions given in cl. (15) of the will, the obligations of the  trust for  the charities mentioned in items 2, 4, 5 and 6  of  cl. (7)  of the will have been fully discharged by donating  Rs. 8,000  out of the corpus of the trust.  The expenses of  the annual  Swamivatsal  feasts were met, and  the  payments  to other  charities  were duly made out of the  income  of  the balance funds every year up to Samvat 1999 corresponding  to 1942-43 A.D., and the accumulations of the unexpended income up  to that year represent a true surplus.   In  :accordance with the intention of the founder of the trust, the  surplus should be applied as nearly as possible to the original uses and purposes of the trust.  In all the circumstances of  the case, the surplus should be applied to increase the  amounts spendable  for the surviving objects of the  trust.   During the subsequent years up to Samvat year 2010 corresponding to 1953-1954 A.D., the annual feasts could not be given due  to rationing  restrictions,  but  the  expenses  of  the  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

charities  were  duly  met.   The  savings  of  the   income spendable  during  these  years for  the  feasts  should  be applied suitably for carrying out the same object in future. The  balance  savings,  if any, should  be  devoted  towards increasing  the amounts spendable for the other  objects  of the   trust.    The   savings  during   Samvat   year   2011 corresponding to 1954-55 A.D. were due to the fact that  the annual  feast  was  not given in spite  of  the  absence  of rationing restrictions.  The                             821 savings  for this year should be devoted towards the  giving of  the Swamivatsal feasts.  The trustees cannot be  allowed to defeat the objects of the trust by refusing to carry them out.   It is said that the giving of a Swamivatsal feast  on the scale given in the past would now cost about Rs.  3,000. But  if the income at the disposal of the trustees will  not permit  the  spending of such a large amount,  there  is  no reason why the trustees would not spend a smaller amount and give  the feast to a smaller number of guests.  In  view  of the enormous rise in prices since the creation of the trust, an increase of the amounts spendable for the charities would be in accordance with the general intention of the  founder. This  is  an additional reason for applying  the  unexpended income  for  the original objects of the  trust  instead  of diverting  them  for other purposes.  It is  desirable  that instead  of  spending the corpus of the  accumulations,  the corpus  should be invested and its income should be  applied towards  the  original objects’ In the light  of  all  these considerations, we propose to give the directions set out in our order. The  scheme framed by the Courts below is  objectionable  in several  ways.   In  framing the scheme,  the  Courts  below erroneously  disregarded  one  of the main  objects  of  the trust,  viz., the giving of the annual Swamivatsal feast  on the ground that it is not expedient, desirable, necessary or proper in the public interest to carry out this object.  The scheme  disregards the basic principle that the trust  funds should  be  applied for effectuating the  intention  of  the founder of the trust as far as possible.  The direction  for payment  of one half of the accumulations to the  Sad  Vidya Mandal  on  the ground that its object is analogous  to  the object  of the Jain Gyan Fund mentioned in item 8 of cl.  10 of  the  will  is  objectionable  on  the  ground  that  the freeships  are not restricted to the Jains and also  on  the ground  that  subject to giving the freeships the  donee  is entitled to spend the corpus for other purposes.   Moreover, the  purposes of the Sad Vidya Mandal and its freeships  are not  analogous to the purposes of the Jain Gyan Fund,  which is a religious fund for imparting knowledge of Jain religion and Jain Shastras.  The direction for payment of one half of the   accumulated  amount  to  the  Sevashram  Hospital   is objectionable  on the ground that medical treatment  of  the poor  and deserving is not one of the  objects  specifically mentioned  in cl. 7 of the will.  Both these directions  are also objectionable on the ground that they do not take  into account  the original objects of the trust.  For  all  these reasons,  the directions given by the Courts below  must  be set aside. 822 In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the judgments  and decrees  passed by the Courts below are set aside.  In  lieu of  the  directions given by the Courts below, we  give  the following directions : Out of the accumulations of the unexpended income up to  the 25th October, 1956 amounting to Rs. 45,091-14-0 the trustees

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

will set apart a reasonable sum not exceeding Rs. 5,000 as a working  fund to meet current expenses.  The  trustees  will invest  the balance amount in such manner as they think  fit in  accordance with S. 35 of the Bombay Public  Trusts  Act, 1950.   The trustees will spend and utilise every year  one- half  of  the annual income from these investments  for  the charities mentioned in items 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. 11 and 12 of cl. 7 of the win of Jhaverchand Dahyabhai Shah, dated August 6,  1915  in  such  proportion and in  such  manner  as  the trustees think fit and proper.  The trustees will spend  and utilise every year the balance one-half of the annual income of  those  investments  for  the  annual  Swamivatsal  feast (caste-dinner)  mentioned  in cl. 7 of the  aforesaid  will. The disbursements to be made under these directions will  be in  addition to the payments to be made by the trustees  out of  the income of the investments of the original corpus  of the  trust funds.  Out of the net income of the  investments of  the original corpus, the trustees will continue to  make the  annual payments to the charities mentioned in items  1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of cl. 7 of the aforesaid will and will  spend  the  balance  income  for  giving  the   annual Swamivatsal feasts.  The trustees shall give the Swamivatsal feast every year as far as possible.  If for some reason the feast cannot be given in any year, the amount spendable  for this  object  in that year should be spent  for  giving  the feast in the following years. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties will  pay and bear their own costs throughout in this  Court as  also in the Courts below, except that the trustees  will pay  the sum of Rs. 64-8-0 to the Charity  Commissioner  and the  sum  of Rs. 42-10-0 to opponents Nos. 6 to  13  to  the application, as originally directed by the District Judge. Appeal allowed. 823