HEIR OF DECEASED MAHARAJ PURSHOTTAM LALJI MAHARAJ JUNAGAD AJANTA ES1ATE AGENCY JAYSHREE ROAD JUNAGAD Vs. COLLECTOR OF JUNAGAD DISTRICT:COLLECTOR OF JUNAGAD DISTRICT
LAWS(SC)-1986-9-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on September 09,1986

HEIR OF DECEASED MAHARAJ PURSHOTTAMLALJI MAHARAJ,JUNAGAD,AJANTA ESTATE AGENCY,JAYSHREE ROAD,JUNAGAD Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF JUNAGAD DISTRICT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) These two appeals by special leave assail the judgment. of the Gujarat High Court substantially affirming the appellate decision of the Charity Commissioner that the Pushti Margiya Moti Haveli at Junagad and thirty-eight items of its properties constitute a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
(2.) The appellant is the widow of Maharajshri Purshottamlalji who admittedly was a lineal descendant of Shrimad Vallabhacharyaji, the founder of the Pushti Margi Sampradaya. Purshottamlalji passed away in 1955 and, after him, the appellant has been in charge of the management of the Haveli and its assets both moveable and immoveable. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was extended to Saurashtra area of the Gujarat State in the year 1961. In October 1961, the appellant made an application to the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Rajkot under S. 18 of the Act contending that the Haveli and its properties did not-constitute a public trust. An inquiry followed to determine the character of the institution and the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner found that the institution was a public trust and all the forty items of property belonged to that trust. The High Court on appeal by the appellant has, however, recorded the following findings: (1) Haveli Mandir at Junagad is a public. trust within the meaning of section 2(13) read with section 2(17) of the Act. (2) The moveable and immoveable properties appearing in the appendices A and B in the judgment of the Charity Commissioner excepting two items of immoveable property covered by Exhibits 265 and 268 belong to the trust. In the absence of any challenge against exclusion of the two items from the purview of the trust, the same are no more in dispute. (3) The appellant is the trustee of the temple and its properties. Succession to trusteeship is by inheritance without the sanction of the State Government. (4) Guruseva Bhet and Charanseva Bhet offered by the devotees of Vallabha cult form part of the public trust.
(3.) While recording these specific findings the High Court has affirmed the findings of the Charity Commissioner on all other issues.;


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