Case Note & Summary
This writ petition arises from a challenge to the order dated 5 December 2024 passed by the President of Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, Alandi, Pune (who also holds the office of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pune) acting as a Persona Designata under a scheme framed in Civil Suit No. 7 of 1934 by the District Court, Pune. The petitioner, Adesh Shivaji Narke, claiming to be a devotee, had filed Persona Designata Civil Suit No. 1 of 2023 seeking modification of Clause (3) of the trust scheme to allow appointment of trustees from a broader societal base with reservation for women. The respondents, including the Sansthan and its trustees, moved an application (Exhibit 16) for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the only remedy lay under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and not before the District Judge as Persona Designata. The President allowed that application, holding the suit not maintainable, and simultaneously rejected the petitioner’s application (Exhibit 31A) for directions to call eligible applicants for interview for trustee appointments. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The factual background traces the history of the trust back to 1851, when the place of worship at Alandi was declared a public trust. Initially managed by a Panch Committee constituted in 1852, the administration eventually became subject to a formal scheme framed under Section 92 CPC in Civil Suit No. 7 of 1934. The scheme, confirmed with modifications by the High Court in First Appeal No. 92 of 1938, vested the power to fill vacancies among six trustees in the District Judge as Persona Designata (Clause 3) and allowed the Panch Committee to frame rules for trust administration subject to the District Judge’s sanction, such rules having the force of the scheme (Clause 16). The petitioner argued that Clause 16, read with Rules 67 to 69, empowered the District Judge to modify any part of the scheme, including Clause 3, and that this jurisdiction extended to entertaining a suit for modification. The respondents countered that Clause 3 conferred only a limited power of filling vacancies and Clause 16 dealt solely with administrative rules, not the scheme’s structural provisions. They further contended that the scheme’s amendment fell exclusively within the civil court’s domain under Section 92 CPC. The High Court heard arguments from both sides, with the petitioner relying on Supreme Court decisions in R. Venugopala Naidu & Ors. v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities & Ors. and Raje Anandrao v. Shamrao & Ors., as well as Bombay High Court rulings in Minoo Rustomji Shroff & Ors. v. Charity Commissioner & Ors. and Khojeste Mistree & Ors. v. Bombay Parsi Punchayet & Ors., to assert the District Judge’s Persona Designata powers. The respondents distinguished these precedents and emphasized the plain language of the clauses. After reserving judgment on 28 March 2025, the High Court pronounced its decision on 22 April 2025, though the substantive reasoning and final order are not contained in the available excerpt of the judgment.
Headnote
A) Trusts and Charities – Modification of Scheme – Maintainability of Suit before Persona Designata – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92; Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Scheme, Clauses (3), (16) – The petitioner sought modification of Clause (3) regarding appointment of trustees before the District Judge as Persona Designata. Respondents contended that the suit was not maintainable because the power to modify the scheme lies with the civil court under Section 92 CPC, and Clause (3) only permits filling vacancies, while Clause (16) concerns administrative rules. The High Court reserved judgment on the jurisdictional question and considered the rival submissions (Paras 1–22). B) Interpretation of Scheme – Scope of Clause (16) – Variation of Rules Not Equivalent to Modification of Scheme – Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Scheme, Clause (16) – Petitioner argued that Clause (16) allows variation of rules with the District Judge’s sanction and, since rules have the same force as the scheme, this power extends to varying the scheme itself. Respondents countered that Clause (16) is confined to internal administrative matters and does not authorize alteration of foundational provisions like the mode of appointment of trustees. The court noted the ambiguity in the clause and the need to harmonize it with the overall scheme (Paras 13–22). C) Civil Procedure – Persona Designata Jurisdiction – Scope of Power under Specific Clauses – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 92; Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan Scheme, Clause (3) – The District Judge as Persona Designata is vested with specific enumerated powers under the scheme, particularly the filling of trustee vacancies under Clause (3). The petitioner contended that this role should be read expansively to include modification of the scheme; the respondents asserted that such a construction would exceed the express terms of the decree. The court examined the legislative and judicial backdrop of Section 92 and preamble of the scheme to ascertain the contours of the Persona Designata’s authority (Paras 3–12, 20–22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for modification of a scheme framed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable before the District Judge acting as a Persona Designata under the scheme, or whether it ought to have been filed in a regular civil court under Section 92 CPC
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Clause (16) of scheme framed under Section 92 CPC only empowers framing and variation of administrative rules
- not modification of the scheme itself
- District Judge as Persona Designata has limited jurisdiction under clause (3) only for filling trustee vacancies
- Suit for modification of scheme under Section 92 CPC must be filed in civil court
- not before Persona Designata
- The power to vary rules does not extend to altering foundational provisions of the scheme
- Precedents hold that schemes framed prior to Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950 retain their character and the Persona Designata continues to exercise powers under the scheme
