Skip to content


Sheik Davud Saiba and ors. Vs. HusseIn Saiba and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTrusts and Societies
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1894)4MLJ48
AppellantSheik Davud Saiba and ors.
RespondentHusseIn Saiba and ors.
Excerpt:
- - it is then contended that the power conferred on the committee, it is bound to exercise reasonably, and in good faith, in furtherance of beneficial administration, and this contention is entitled to weight. , that when such discretionary power is not exercised reasonably and in good faith, such power may be controlled by a civil court of original jurisdiction, is equally applicable to public trusts. 3. the second issue raised the question and the district-munsif held that the committee exercised the power otherwise than reasonably and in good faith. [in compliance with the above order, the district judge returned a finding that the power had not been exercised unreasonably]. on receipt of this finding the court (muthusami aiyar and best, jj) dismissed this appeal with costs......embodied in 8. 49 of the indian trusts act, vie., that when such discretionary power is not exercised reasonably and in good faith, such power may be controlled by a civil court of original jurisdiction, is equally applicable to public trusts. there is nothing in act xx of 1863 or in regulation vii of 1817 to support respondent's suggestion that the power is absolute.3. the second issue raised the question and the district-munsif held that the committee exercised the power otherwise than reasonably and in good faith. but the judge has expressed no opinion. before disposing of this second appeal we shall ask the judge to return a finding as to whether the appointment of additional trustees was a reasonable, bona fide, exercise of their power, conducive to beneficial management......
Judgment:
ORDER

1. It is urged on appellants' behalf that the committee constituted under Act XX of 1863 acted ultra vires in appointing six additional trustees to the plaint mosque without any necessity for so doing.

2. It is certainly competent to the committee when there is no hereditary trustee to add to the number of the existing trustees and it has the same powers which the Board of Revenue had under Regulation VII of 1817. Section 13 of that Regulation authorizes the Board of Revenue to make provision for the administration of religious and charitable endowments. It was also held by this Court in Regular Appeal No. 31 of 1888 that the committee might validly appoint new trustees where the right of management is not hereditary. It is then contended that the power conferred on the committee, it is bound to exercise reasonably, and in good faith, in furtherance of beneficial administration, and this contention is entitled to weight. The power conferred on the committee is no doubt discretionary but the principle embodied in 8. 49 of the Indian Trusts Act, vie., that when such discretionary power is not exercised reasonably and in good faith, such power may be controlled by a Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction, is equally applicable to public trusts. There is nothing in Act XX of 1863 or in Regulation VII of 1817 to support respondent's suggestion that the power is absolute.

3. The second issue raised the question and the District-Munsif held that the committee exercised the power otherwise than reasonably and in good faith. But the judge has expressed no opinion. Before disposing of this second appeal we shall ask the judge to return a finding as to whether the appointment of additional trustees was a reasonable, bona fide, exercise of their power, conducive to beneficial management. Additional evidence may be admitted.

[In compliance with the above order, the District Judge returned a finding that the power had not been exercised unreasonably]. On receipt of this finding the court (Muthusami Aiyar and Best, JJ) dismissed this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //