Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned a trust known as Mehdibaug, founded in 1891 in Nagpur, in the Vidharbha area, whose properties were in possession of and managed by the appellant. In October 1953, one Jaferbhai, claiming to be a beneficiary, applied under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, requesting the Registrar to determine that the trust was a public trust. The Registrar conducted an inquiry and, by order dated November 11, 1955, held that the trust was not a public trust. However, the Registrar did not cause an entry of this negative finding to be made in the register of public trusts maintained under the Act. On November 1, 1956, following the reorganisation of States, Vidharbha was merged into the then Bombay State. The Bombay Legislature passed the Bombay Public Trusts (Unification and Amendment) Act, 1959 (6 of 1960), and by notification dated February 1, 1961, the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, was extended to the Vidharbha area. Section 86 of the Bombay Act repealed the M.P. Act and contained saving clauses in sub-section (3) for anything done, rights accrued, and legal proceedings pending under the repealed Act. On March 2, 1962, respondents 2 to 5 filed an application under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act before the Assistant Charity Commissioner for an inquiry as to whether the trust was a public trust. The appellant objected, contending that the previous negative finding under the M.P. Act precluded a fresh inquiry. The Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected this contention on September 6, 1962. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging that decision. The High Court dismissed the petition on December 9, 1963, holding that the M.P. Act did not confer finality on the Registrar's finding and that only an entry in the register of public trusts conferred finality; since no negative entry was made, no right accrued and no pending proceeding existed. The High Court also held that a suit under Section 8 of the M.P. Act could not have been filed because no entry was made. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the Registrar was obliged to make an entry regardless of the negative finding; that the inquiry was incomplete without the entry and thus a pending proceeding saved under Section 86(3); and that a right had vested in the appellant because six months had expired since the finding, making it final. The respondents argued that no finality attached to the finding, only to the entry; that no negative entry was required; and that therefore no right or pending proceeding existed. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It held that reading Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 together, the Registrar was enjoined to make an entry in the register of public trusts irrespective of whether the finding was affirmative or negative, as the entry was to be made in accordance with his finding. The failure to make the negative entry meant the inquiry was not completed and remained a pending proceeding under the repealed Act. The inquiry and its result were saved as a 'thing duly done' and as a pending proceeding by Section 86(3)(a) and (c) of the Bombay Act, and therefore continued to be governed by the M.P. Act. Consequently, the Assistant Charity Commissioner was precluded from holding a fresh inquiry under Section 19 of the Bombay Act. The Court further held that the cause of action for a suit under Section 8 of the M.P. Act was the finding, not the entry, and the right to file a suit could not depend on the Registrar making an entry. The order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed, thereby barring the fresh inquiry.
Headnote
A) Public Trusts - Registration and Enquiry - Statutory Obligation to Record Finding - Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, Sections 5, 6, 7 - Registrar must make an entry in the register of public trusts irrespective of whether the finding is affirmative or negative; the entry to be made is 'in accordance with his finding' whatever that finding is. The Registrar's failure to make a negative entry did not invalidate the finding or relieve him of the statutory duty. Held that the Registrar was enjoined to make the entry even when the finding was negative. (Paras 1-9) B) Public Trusts - Repeal and Savings - Pending Proceedings and Things Done - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Section 86(3); Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, Sections 5-8 - Inquiry held by Registrar under the M.P. Act was a 'thing duly done' and a pending proceeding; saved by Section 86(3)(a) despite the repeal of the M.P. Act in the Vidharbha area. Consequently, the Assistant Charity Commissioner could not hold a fresh inquiry under Section 19 of the Bombay Act. Held that the inquiry and its result continued to be governed by the M.P. Act and the Assistant Charity Commissioner was precluded from entertaining a fresh inquiry. (Paras 1-9) C) Public Trusts - Suit for Correction of Register - Cause of Action - Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, Section 8 - Cause of action for a suit under Section 8 is the finding, not the entry, which is merely consequential. A suit can be filed even if the Registrar has not made the entry; the legislature could not have left the right to file a suit to the mercy of the Registrar. Held that the suit cannot be barred merely because no entry was made. (Paras 1-9) D) Statutory Interpretation - Repeal and Saving Clauses - Scope of 'Anything Done' and 'Legal Proceedings Pending' - Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Section 86(3); Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 - The saving provision in Section 86(3) projected anything done, rights accrued, and legal proceedings pending under the repealed Act. The inquiry proceedings and negative finding were saved and could not be reopened under the new Act. Held that the appellant's right accrued and the pending proceeding barred a fresh inquiry under the Bombay Act. (Paras 1-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Assistant Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 had jurisdiction to hold an inquiry under Section 19 despite a previous finding by the Registrar under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 that the trust was not a public trust; whether the absence of an entry in the register rendered the inquiry incomplete and a pending proceeding saved under Section 86(3) of the Bombay Act; and whether a suit under Section 8 of the M.P. Act could be filed without the Registrar having made an entry.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and held that the Assistant Charity Commissioner was precluded from entertaining a fresh inquiry under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Registrar under the M.P. Act was obliged to make an entry in the register of public trusts irrespective of the negative finding; failure to do so rendered the inquiry incomplete and a pending proceeding saved under Section 86(3) of the Bombay Act. The inquiry and its result continued to be governed by the M.P. Act. Cause of action for a suit under Section 8 was the finding, not the entry.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Registrar must make entry in public trust register irrespective of negative finding
- Negative finding does not absolve Registrar from entry obligation
- Inquiry and finding under repealed Act saved as thing duly done
- Pending proceeding under old Act continues and cannot be reopened
- Fresh inquiry under Bombay Act barred
- Cause of action for suit under Section 8 is finding
- not entry
- Right to file suit cannot depend on Registrar making entry
