Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from an Originating Summons filed by the plaintiff, a permanent trustee of the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust, a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The summons, filed under Rule 238 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, sought the interpretation of certain clauses of the trust deed. The contesting defendants raised several preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the summons. First, they argued that clause 11(v) of the trust deed, which provided that the trustees' decision on all matters of interpretation shall be final, barred the jurisdiction of the court. Second, they contended that under section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the Charity Commissioner had exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes, thereby ousting the civil court's jurisdiction. Third, they asserted that the plaintiff had not obtained the permission of the Charity Commissioner under section 51 of the Act. Fourth, they raised the bar of limitation. The plaintiff opposed these objections, maintaining that the court had inherent jurisdiction to interpret the trust deed. The court examined the preliminary issues in detail. On clause 11(v), it held that parties cannot by contract or any instrument annul the jurisdiction of the court; the clause is relevant only to the exercise of the court's discretion and does not bar jurisdiction. It further observed that if the trustees' interpretation is motivated, absurd, perverse, or mala fide, the court can correct it. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Nagappa v. Dodda Bharamappa & Anr. to support this view. On section 80, the court began its analysis by considering the scope of sections 22 and 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and the nature of the Originating Summons. It noted that the High Court's power under Rule 238 is not ousted merely because the trust is a public trust, especially when the relief sought is purely interpretative. Ultimately, the court answered all four preliminary issues in the negative, holding that the Originating Summons was maintainable and the court had jurisdiction. It directed the parties to proceed with arguments on the merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Originating Summons - Interpretation of Trust Deed - Clause 11(v) of Trust Deed - Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, Rule 238 - The plaintiff filed an Originating Summons for interpretation of a trust deed; the defendants argued that clause 11(v) which empowered trustees to decide all questions of interpretation barred the court's jurisdiction. The court held that clause 11(v) does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court but is relevant only to the discretion of the court; the court can intervene if the trustees' interpretation is motivated, absurd, perverse or mala fide, as reaffirmed by Nagappa v. Dodda Bharamappa & Anr. (Paras 6-12). B) Trusts - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 80, Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Originating Summons - The defendants contended that section 80 BPT Act bars civil court jurisdiction and that interpretation of a trust deed falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner under section 22. The court (as per its initial ruling) answered the issue in the negative, indicating that section 80 does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Rule 238 when the relief sought is purely interpretative and not within the specific domain of the Charity Commissioner. (Paras 3(A), 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Originating Summons is maintainable in view of the preliminary objections based on clause 11(v) of the trust deed, section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, section 51 of the BPT Act, and limitation.
Final Decision
All four preliminary issues were answered in the negative. The Court held that it has jurisdiction and the Originating Summons is maintainable.
Law Points
- parties cannot contract out of court's jurisdiction
- clause 11(v) relevant to discretion not jurisdiction
- court can interfere if trustees' interpretation is motivated or perverse
- section 80 BPT not an absolute bar to civil court's jurisdiction in interpretative matters
- Originating Summons under Rule 238 is maintainable
