ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SITALAXMI SAHUWALA MEDICAL TRUST
LAWS(SC)-2020-3-18
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on March 03,2020

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ABDUR RAHIM V. MAHOMED BARKAT ALI [REFERRED TO]
JANKI BAI V. THIRUCHITRAMBALA VINAYAKAR [REFERRED TO]
V.RAJASEKARAN VS. M. RAJENDRAN [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUKHAM CHETTY V. GOVINDA CHETTY [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN MADAPPA VS. M N MAHANTHADEVARU ANA [REFERRED TO]
BISHWANATH VS. THAKUR RADHA BALLABHJI [REFERRED TO]
SUGRA BIBI VS. HAZI KUMMUMIA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

BABU LAL VS. RAVI NARAYAN [LAWS(ALL)-2021-8-220] [REFERRED TO]
MRS. ETHEL LOURDES D’SOUZA LOBO VS. LUCIO NEVILLE JUDE DE SOUZA [LAWS(SC)-2022-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
SREE GURUDEVA CHARITABLE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST VS. K.GOPALAKRISHNAN [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-577] [REFERRED TO]
RAVEENDRAN C.S. VS. SREE NARAYANA CHARITABLE TRUST [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-489] [REFERRED TO]
CLEMENT SELVARAJ VS. JOHN DE MONTE TRUST [LAWS(MAD)-2021-11-134] [REFERRED TO]
NESTORE AND ORS. VS. REGEENA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2020-12-525] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SATHYA SAI LOKA SEVA TRUST VS. SRI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-185] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

UDAY UMESH LALIT,J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 30.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P. (PD) No.2708 of 2013.
(3.)Original Suit No.566 of 2012 was filed by the present appellants in the Court of the District Judge, Coimbatore stating basic facts as under:-
"III. The 2nd plaintiff is the wife of the 1st plaintiff. The 1st plaintiff is the elder son of defendants 2 and 3. The 4th defendant is the younger son of defendants 2 and 3 and the 5 th defendant is his wife. The 6th defendant is the daughter of defendants 4 and 5. The 7th defendant is son in law of the family and he has married the sister of 1 st plaintiff and the 4th defendant. The plaintiffs are Trustees of the 1 st defendant Trust and are persons having interest in the affairs of the Trust and are filing the present suit for framing a scheme for the administration of the 1st defendant Trust, which is a Public Charitable Trust.

IV) The 2nd defendant settled down in Coimbatore in 1959 and he was managing the firm called M/s India Roller Flour Mills. The 1st plaintiff was academically a good student and he secured admission on merit in medical college and he graduated from Coimbatore Medical College completing MBBS. He pursued his studies further in post-graduation and completed his M.S. from Madras Medical College, Chennai, and is thus a qualified surgeon who has graduated from the Madras University.

V) Taking note of his future and his carrier as a Doctor, the 2nd defendant decided to construct a hospital, so as to enable the 1st plaintiff to carry on his profession. However, the hospital was envisaged as a charitable hospital. The 2nd defendant as author of the trust established the 1st defendant Trust, M/s Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust, under registered Trust Deed dated 09.04.1980. A copy of Deed of Trust is produced herewith and the original is with the 2 nd defendant as also the rest of the documents.

VI) The objects of the Trust are set out in Clause I which briefly are to establish, maintain and render financial assistance and donations by establishing and assisting running of a hospitals, surgical homes; health trainings, nursing homes, maternity homes and dispensaries and to equip the hospitals and provide accessories and instruments etc.

VII) The plaintiff respectfully states that the 1st defendant Trust was established with the aim and object of providing medical aid to the needy citizens. This was contemplated taking note of the fact that the 1st plaintiff who became a qualified medical practitioner would look after the institution and administer the hospital where a part of the hospital can be run for charity and the 1 st plaintiff can have his consultations and in patients admitted to serve the people in society.

VIII) It is significant that the four trustees appointed under the Deed of Trust are both the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 and they have been appointed for life. The 2nd defendant is the Managing Trustee and the 1st plaintiff was appointed as the Joint Managing Trustee, vide Clause 10.

IX) There was an amendment to the Trust Deed dated 09.04.1980 by another deed dated 23.03.1981. In addition to the objects, further objects for providing free education and conducting orphanages and help poor people perform marriages were introduced to the objects. But nothing of these additional charities were ever performed.

X) By another deed dated 15.03.1985, further objects were introduced to the Deed of Trust which have no relevance to the original objects. There was also an amendment to the Trust Deed by a registered deed dated 24.11.1986 providing for borrowing powers.

XI) The Trust purchased land measuring 33 Cents in Cowly Brown Road by a sale deed dated 08.04.1985 and a hospital was constructed and it was established by the 1st defendant trust in 1987-88. The 1st plaintiff was looking after administration of this hospital till the year 2003-04. The subsequent turn of events during the past one decade are narrated herein below........".

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.