PETITIONER: SHAH CHHOTALAL LALLUBHAI AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: CHARITY COMMISSIONER, BOMBAY, AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/1965 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) DAYAL, RAGHUBAR RAMASWAMI, V. CITATION: 1965 AIR 1611 1965 SCR (2) 811 ACT: Bombay Public Trusts Act (29 of 1950), ss. 55 and 56- Diversion of accumulation of trust funds-When permitted. HEADNOTE: A testator, who professed the Jain religion, gave directions in his will that certain amounts should be spent annually on religious and charitable objects specified by him, and that an annual feast should be given to members of his caste in certain specified villages. He died in 1916 and by 1955 there was a large accumulation of unexpended income mainly because of discontinuing the feast, and so, the Charity sioner filed an application before the District Judge, under ss. 55(1)(b) and 56 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for directions for the utilization of that sum. The District Judge directed a division of the amount between an educational institution and a hospital. The appellants, who were of the same caste as the testator and who objected before the District Judge to the diversion of the sum appealed to the High Court, but the appeal was dismissed. In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged the propriety and legality of the directions given by the District Judge and confirmed by the High Court. HELD : The directions should be set aside, as the respondent had not made out a case for such diversion of trust funds, and the directions were objectionable on the ground that they did not take into account the original objects of the trust. [821 H; 822 A] On an application either under s. 55(1)(a) or s. 55(1)(b) read with s. 56(2) the Court is bound to give direction in respect of all public trusts. Section 56(1) provides that in giving the directions. the Court shall, so far as may be expedient, practicable, desirable, necessary or proper in the public interest, give effect to the original intention of the author of the trust or the object for which the trust was created. Under the latter part of s. 56(1), if the Court finds that the carrying out of the original intention or object wholly or partially, is neither expedient nor practicable nor desirable nor necessary nor proper in the public interest, the court may direct the property or income of the trust or any portion thereof to be applied by press to any other charitable or religious object. One of the objects for which the trust was created in the instant case, was the annual feast to the members of the testator's caste. Looking at the interest of the community, it was certainly expedient, practicable, desirable and proper to give the feast. Even if it was not a religious act, it was a meritorious one prescribed by the scriptures of the Jains. In the wider public interest also it was expedient, practicable, desirable and proper to respect the sentiments and interests of that section of the Jain public and to give effect to the charity. [818 B-C, D-E, F, G-H] 812 Further, the overriding intention of the founder of the trust was that the amount set apart by him should be devoted to the objects mentioned in the will, so that those objects may be continued and carried out for ever. In accordance with the intention of the founder the surplus should be applied, as nearly as possible to the original uses and purposes of the trust. The savings should be applied suitably for carrying out the same objects in future or to increase the amounts spendable for the surviving objects of the trust, instead of diverting them for other purposes [820 C, F, H] [Suitable directions were given by the Court in lieu of those set aside, for utilising the accumulations]. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 634 of
1964.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
January 25, 1957, of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 620
of 1956.
Gumanmal Lodha, J. S. Rastogi and J. B. Dadachanji, for the
appellants.
P. K. Chatterjee, B. R. G. K. Achar for R. H. Dhebar, for
respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat. J. One Jhaverchand Dahyabhai Shah died in 1916,
leaving a will, dated August 6, 1915. He was a resident of
Vejalpore in the suburbs of Broach and a Ladva Shrimali
Bania by caste. He professed the Jain religion, and
believed in the tenets of the Swetembar Murti Pujak sect of
Jains. By cl. (7) of the will, he directed his executors to
spend out of the earnings of his shop every year during the
life-time of his niece, Bai Jakore, the amounts mentioned
below on the following religious objects
(1) Rs. 100 for feeding cattle with grass,
fodder, oil cakes etc., in the Broach
Pinjrapole.
(2) Rs. 100 for Jiva-daya Khata (fund for
kindness to animals).
(3) Rs. 25 for offering flowers for the
worship of Lord Rikabdev in the Jain temple at
Vejalpore, Broach.
(4) Rs. 200 for providing food to Shravak
pilgrims at the Shatroonjaya Hill at Palitana.
(5) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at
Mount Girnar.
(6) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at
Mount Abu.
813
(7) Rs. 250 for providing cereals, clothes
etc., to Shravaks and Shravikas.
(8) Rs. 100 for providing cloth to Jain
Sadhus and Sadhavies.
(9) Rs. 200 for education and food of Hindu
orphans.
(10) Rs. 200 for Jain Gyan Khata (fund for
imparting knowledge).
(11) Rs. 100 for feeding Shravaks and
Shravikas who have observed fast.
(12) Rs. 300 for giving food, cloth etc., to
the blind, lame and crippled members of the
Hindu Community.
In addition, he also directed his executors to give a
Swamivatsal feast or meal consisting of methi-dal and ladus
made of sugar to the members of his caste at 15 specified
villages and towns in the Broach and Surat Districts every
year on the occasion of the sacred festival of Pajusan. By
cl. (15) of the will, he directed that after the death of
his niece, Bai Jakore, a sum of Rs. 75,000 should be set
apart by the executors, and out of the moneys so set apart,
suitable amounts should be sent to the respective Khatas
(funds) in his name, so that the religious acts mentioned in
cl. (7) be continued for ever.
On the death of Bai Jakore on May 20, 1928, the estate
vested in the residuary legatee, Bai Chanchal, daughter of
Bai Jakore. Mulchandbhai, husband of Bai Chanchal, set
apart Rs. 75,000 on trust for the purposes mentioned in cl.
(7) of the win, and began to manage the trust estate. Out
of the trust moneys, he invested Rs. 8,000 in 5 per cent
tax-free Government Loan, 1944-45, yielding an annual income
of Rs. 400, and pursuant to the directions given in cl. (15)
of the will, handed over loans of the face value of Rs.
4,000, Rs. 1,000, Rs. 1,000, and Rs. 2,000 respectively to
four religious and charitable institutions in full discharge
of the obligation of the trust for expending annually the
sums of Rs. 200, Rs. 50, Rs. 50 and Rs. 100 on items 2, 4, 5
and 6 of the religious purposes mentioned in cl. (7) of the
will. On December 8, 1947, Bai Chanchal executed a trust
deed in respect of the investments representing the balance
amount of Rs. 67,000 and an accumulation of surplus or
unexpended income amounting to Rs. 25,796-6-8. The trust is
registered as a public trust under the
814
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as
the Act. The trust deed provided that the unexpended
accumulation of Rs. 25,796-6-8 should be applied for
establishing, maintaining and supporting a Nivas for housing
the poor and middle-class provided that after setting apart
the aforesaid sum of Ladva Shrimali Jains at low and cheap
rents. The trust deed also provided that after setting
apart the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25,796-6-8 the balance funds
would be held in trust for applying its income to the
charities mentioned in cl. (7) of the aforesaid will other
than items 2, 4, 5 and 6. Now, the trustees had no authority
to divert any part of the trust fund for the purposes of the
Nivas scheme. The establishment of a Nivas for housing the
poor and middle-class Ladva Shrimali Jains is not one of the
original objects of the trust. As a matter of fact, the
Nivas scheme was not carried into effect. The Charity
Commissioner, Bombay challenged the validity of the Nivas
scheme. The Courts below rightly proceeded on the footing
that the Nivas scheme is invalid. Subsequent to the
execution of the trust deed, there were further accumula-
tions of unexpended income. The Swamivatsal feasts were
given, and the fixed annual payments to all the charities
were duly met up to Samvat year 1999 corresponding to 1942-
1943 A.D. During the subsequent years, the fixed annual
payments to the charities were duly made, but on account of
rationing restrictions, the feasts could not be given up to
Samvat year 2010 corresponding to 1953-1954 A.D. During the
Samvat year 2011 corresponding to 1954-1955 A.D., the feast
was not given in spite of the removal of rationing
restrictions. The trustees allege that the current income
of the trust fund after disbursing the fixed annual payments
is not sufficient to meet the usual expenses of annual
feasts. On June 3, 1955, the Charity Commissioner filed an
application before the District Judge, Broach under S.
55(1)(b) and S. 56 of the Act for suitable directions for
the utilisation of the accumulations of the unexpended
income of the trust for some educational purpose. The
trustees were impleaded as respondents to this application.
Pursuant to a general notice issued by the Court, the
appellants and four other members of the Ladva Shrimali
Shravak Bania Community in Broach and Surat Districts
appeared, and intervened in the application. On their
behalf, it was contended that the trust was for religious
purposes and its funds could not be diverted for other
purposes under ss. 55 (1) (b) and 56 of the Act, and that
the accumulations should be utilised year after year for
meeting the deficit amount required for the annual swami-
vatsal feasts.
The District Judge held that the provisions of s. 56 of the
815
Act did not apply to the funds of a public religious trust,
and if the accumulations were held for a religious purpose,
the Court could not give any directions for its utilisation
under that section, that the Swamivatsal feast confers
religious benefits and objects Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 11
1 are also religious in character, while the remaining
objects are charitable, and therefore the entire feast was
not of a religious character, but assuming that the trust
was wholly religious, the accumulation was not held for
religious purposes, and was subject to the directions of the
Court as to its utilisation under s. 56 read with s. 55 (1)
(b) of the Act. He also held that the trustees could not
save any moneys in future by simply refusing to give the
Swamivatsal feasts but it was not in the public interest to
provide for the expenses of the feast out of the
accumulation, and the accumulation should be spent for
educational and medical purposes. The District Judge passed
final orders on October 25, 1956. On that date, the
accumulation of unexpended income amounted to Rs. 45,019-14-
0, besides another sum of Rs. 107-2-0. The District Judge
directed the trustees to hand over a sum of Rs. 22,505-15-0
to an institution known as the Sad Vidya Mandal for giving
four freeships every year to deserving students, who should
preferably be Jains of Broach District and failing such
deserving cases, to other Hindu students. Subject to the
condition of giving freeships, the Sad Vidya Mandal would be
at liberty to spend the amount for purposes of the building
of the College or its hostel or in providing other
educational facilities to the students. He also directed
the trustees to pay another sum of Rs. 22,509-15-0 to the
trustees of the Sevashram Hospital at Broach on condition
that the amount be invested in any approved trust security
and its income be utilised in providing maintenance, food
and medicine to poor and deserving patients. He directed
the payment of the remaining sum of Rs. 107-2-0 towards
costs.
The appellants and two other members of the Ladva Shrimali
Shravak Bania Community preferred an appeal to the Bombay
High Court. The High Court held that the Court could on an
application under s. 55 of the Act deviate from the
directions of the settler, even if the purpose of the trust
has not failed, where the Court finds that it is
inexpedient, impracticable, undesirable, unnecessary or
improper in the public interest to abide by his directions,
but the Court could exercise this power only in respect of
funds of a public trust which was not a trust for religious
purposes. The High Court held that none of the purposes
mentioned in cl. (7) of the will except the one mentioned in
item 3 of the clause could be regarded as religious, that
the object of providing funds for annual Swamivatsal feasts
was charitable and
816
not religious, and that the Court was, therefore, competent
to entertain the application under s. 55. The High Court
further held that providing a feast to. the members of the
caste even on the occasion of a religious festival or on
days which may be regarded as holy is not expedient,
desirable, necessary or proper in the public interest, and
the directions of the District Judge with regard to the
distribution of the fund should not be interfered with. The
High Court accordingly dismissed the appeal. The appellants
now appeal to this Court by special leave. They challenge
the propriety and the legality of the directions given by
the District Judge below, and repeat the submissions made on
their behalf in the Courts below. The respondents contend
that the aforesaid directions were rightly given under ss.
55(1)(b) and 56 of the Act.
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was passed on August 14,
1950, with a view to regulate and make better provision for
the administration of public religious and charitable trusts
in the State of Bombay. Soon after the Act came into force,
its constitutional validity was assailed. In Ratilal
Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay and Others(1), this
Court held that a religious sect or denomination has the
right guaranteed by the Constitution to manage its own
affairs in matters of religion, and this includes the right
to spend the trust property or its income for religion and
for religious purposes and objects indicated by the founder
of the trust or established by usage obtaining in a parti-
cular institution. To divert the trust property or funds
for purposes which the Charity Commissioner or the Court
considers expedient or proper, although the original objects
of the founder can still be carried out, is an unwarranted
encroachment on the freedom of religious institutions in
regard to the management of their religious affairs and
therefore s. 55(1)(c), which contains the offending
provision and the corresponding provision relating to the
powers of the Court occurring in the latter part of s. 56(1)
must be held to be void. Subsequently, Bombay Act 59 of
1954 amended s. 55 (1) (c) by excluding from its purview a
trust for a religious purpose. Sections 55 and 56 of the
Bombay Trusts Act, 1950, as they stand now, are as follows :
“55. (1) If upon an application made to him or
otherwise the Charity Commissioner is of
opinion that-
(a) the original object for which the public
trust was created has failed,
(1) [1954] S. C. R. 1055,1070-1072.
817
(b) the income or any surplus balance of any
public trust has not been utilized or is not
likely to be utilized,
(c) in the case of a public trust other than
a trust for a religious purpose, it is not in
public interest expedient, practicable,
desirable, necessary or proper to carry out
wholly or partially the original intention of
the author of the public trust or the object
for which the public trust was created and
that the property or the income of the public
trust or any portion thereof should be applied
to any other charitable or religious object,
(d) in any of the cases mentioned in
sections 10 to 13 or in regard to
the appropriation of the dharmada sums held in
trust under section 54 the directions of the
Court are necessary,
the Charity Commissioner shall require the
trustee to apply within the prescribed time
for directions to the Court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part
of the subject-matter of the trust is situate.
(2) If the trustees fail to make the
application as required under sub-section (1)
or if the Charity Commissioner himself is a
trustee or if there is no trustee of the
public trust, the Charity Commissioner shall
make an application to the Court.
56. (1) On such application being made, the
court after hearing the parties and making an
inquiry shall decide the matter and shall give
directions. In giving the directions, the
court, shall, so far as may be expedient,
practicable, desirable, necessary or proper in
public interest, give effect to the original
intention of the author of the public trust or
the object for which the public trust was
created. If the court is of opinion that the
carrying out of such intention or object is
not desirable, necessary or proper in public
interest the court may direct the property or
income of the public trust or any portion
thereof to be applied by pres to any other
charitable or religious object. In doing so,
it shall be lawful for the court to alter any
scheme already settled or to vary the terms of
any decree or order already passed in respect
of the public trust or the conditions
contained in the instrument of the public
trust.
(2) Any decision or order passed by the
Court under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to
be a decree
818
of such court and an appeal shall lie
therefrom to the High Court.”
Section 2(13) of the Act provides that unless there is any
thing repugnant in the subject or context, public trust
means an express or constructive trust for either a public
religious or charitable purpose or both. Section 5 5 (1)
(c) expressly excludes from its operation a trust for a
religious purpose. But ss. 55(1) (a) and 55(1)(b) do not
exclude religious trusts from their operation, and they
apply to all public trusts for religious and charitable
purposes. On an application either under S. 55 (1) (a) or
s. 55 (1) (b) read with S. 56(2), the Court is bound to give
directions in respect of all public trusts. Section 56(1)
provides that in giving the directions, the Court shall, so
far as may be expedient, practicable, desirable, necessary
or proper in the public interest, give effect to the
original intention of the author of the trust or the object
for which the trust was created. The conjunction “or” in
this sentence introduces several alternatives. The Court
must give effect to the original intention or object if and
so far as it may be either expedient or practicable or
desirable or proper or necessary to do so. If, for example,
the Court finds that it is proper in the public interest to
give effect to the original object, the Court must give
effect to it, though it is not necessary to do so in the
public interest. Under the latter part of s. 56(1), if the
Court finds that the carrying out of the original intention
or object wholly or partially is neither expedient nor
practicable nor desirable nor necessary nor proper in public
interest, the Court may direct the property or income of the
trust or any portion thereof to be applied ‘by pres to any
other charitable or religious object. The latter part of S.
56(1) thus permits the diversion of trust funds for other
objects, though the original objects of the founder can
still be carried out. But we think that the respondents
have made out no case for such a diversion of trust funds.
One of the objects for which the trust was created was that
a Swamivatsal feast to the members of the Ladva Shrimali
Bania caste should be given every year on the occasion of
the holy festival of Pajusan. The Jains of Ladva Shrimali
Shravak Bania Community are the chief beneficiaries of this
trust. Looking at their interest, it is certainly
expedient, practicable, desirable and proper to give the
feast. The giving and taking of the Swamivatsal feast on
the occasion of the holy festival of Pajusan, if not a
religious act. is a meritorious act prescribed by the scrip-
tures of Swetambar Murti Pujak Jains. The wider public
interest does not require that this special charity for a
section of the lain public should be subverted and
overthrown. In the wider public
819
interest also, it is expedient, practicable, desirable and
proper to, respect the sentiments and interests of this
section of the Jain public and to give effect to this
charity, and we find no reason for giving directions under
the latter part of s. 56(1). We, therefore, propose to give
directions under the first part of s. 56(1).
In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to decide,
whether the trust is a trust for religious purposes, and if
so, whether, having regard to Ratilal Panachand’s case(‘,)
its income or surplus balance spendable for the purposes of
the trust can be diverted for other purposes, though the
original object of the trust can still be carried out. ‘Me
question whether or not the objects mentioned in cl. (7) of
the will are religious objects is not raised in the
pleadings. No issues were framed and no evidence was led’
on this point by either party. What are religious purposes
must be decided according to the tenets and religious
beliefs of the Murti Pujak Swetambara sect of Jains, to
which the testator belonged. It is difficult to decide the
point in the absence of relevant pleadings, issues and
evidence. The District Judge held that the Swamivatsal
feast and many other objects are religious objects. The
High Court too lightly brushed aside this finding. Chapter
IX of the Report of the Hindu Religious Endowments
Commission (1960-62) contains an interesting discussion of
Jain endowments. Paragraphs 7 to 1 1 of Chap. IX of the
Report refer to seven types of religious funds specifically
recognised by the Jain scriptures concerning (1) Jeena
Bimba, (2) Jeena Chaitya, (3) Gyan Fund, (4) Sadhu, (5)
Sadhvi, (6) Shravak and (7) Shravika. The Jains recognise
numerous other endowments or funds for the’ general or
specific purposes, the corpus or interest of which is to be
utilised as per the donor’s intentions. The question
whether the several objects of the trust including the
giving of a Swamivatsal feast are religious in their
character must be left open for future decision.
We must now consider what directions should be given under
s. 56 on the present application. No case for applying the
latter part of s. 56(1) and for refusing to give effect to
the original objects of the trust has been made out. We
should, therefore, give effect to the original intention of
the founder as far as that intention can be carried out. If
the method indicated by the founder cannot be carried out,
the Court will substitute another method by pres, that is to
say, as nearly as possible to the method specified by the
founder. The application of the by pres principle is
explained in Story’s Equity Jurisprudence, 3rd Edn., Art.
1176, p. 494 thus :
(1) [1954] S. C. R. 1055, 82 0 "The doctrine of by pres as applied to charities was formerly pushed to a most extravagant length. But this sensible
distinction now prevails that the Court will
not decree the execution of the trust of a
charity in a manner different from that
intended, except so far as it is seen that the
intention cannot be literally executed. In
that case another mode will be adopted,
consistent with the general intention, so as
to execute it, although not in mode, yet in
substance. If the mode should become by
subsequent circumstances impossible, the
general object is not to be defeated, if it
can in any other way be attained.”
In the instant case, the overriding intention of the founder
of the trust is that the sum of Rs. 75,000 set apart by him
should be devoted to the objects mentioned in cl. (7) of the
will, so that those objects may be continued and carried out
for ever. His intention was that fixed sums should be
expended annually for the 12 items of charity mentioned and
reasonable sums should be expended annually in giving
Swamivatsal feasts to members of his caste. The sum
spendable annually for the feast was necessarily of a
fluctuating character. In accordance with the directions
given in cl. (15) of the will, the obligations of the trust
for the charities mentioned in items 2, 4, 5 and 6 of cl.
(7) of the will have been fully discharged by donating Rs.
8,000 out of the corpus of the trust. The expenses of the
annual Swamivatsal feasts were met, and the payments to
other charities were duly made out of the income of the
balance funds every year up to Samvat 1999 corresponding to
1942-43 A.D., and the accumulations of the unexpended income
up to that year represent a true surplus. In :accordance
with the intention of the founder of the trust, the surplus
should be applied as nearly as possible to the original uses
and purposes of the trust. In all the circumstances of the
case, the surplus should be applied to increase the amounts
spendable for the surviving objects of the trust. During
the subsequent years up to Samvat year 2010 corresponding to
1953-1954 A.D., the annual feasts could not be given due to
rationing restrictions, but the expenses of the other
charities were duly met. The savings of the income
spendable during these years for the feasts should be
applied suitably for carrying out the same object in future.
The balance savings, if any, should be devoted towards
increasing the amounts spendable for the other objects of
the trust. The savings during Samvat year 2011
corresponding to 1954-55 A.D. were due to the fact that the
annual feast was not given in spite of the absence of
rationing restrictions. The
821
savings for this year should be devoted towards the giving
of the Swamivatsal feasts. The trustees cannot be allowed
to defeat the objects of the trust by refusing to carry them
out. It is said that the giving of a Swamivatsal feast on
the scale given in the past would now cost about Rs. 3,000.
But if the income at the disposal of the trustees will not
permit the spending of such a large amount, there is no
reason why the trustees would not spend a smaller amount and
give the feast to a smaller number of guests. In view of
the enormous rise in prices since the creation of the trust,
an increase of the amounts spendable for the charities would
be in accordance with the general intention of the founder.
This is an additional reason for applying the unexpended
income for the original objects of the trust instead of
diverting them for other purposes. It is desirable that
instead of spending the corpus of the accumulations, the
corpus should be invested and its income should be applied
towards the original objects’ In the light of all these
considerations, we propose to give the directions set out in
our order.
The scheme framed by the Courts below is objectionable in
several ways. In framing the scheme, the Courts below
erroneously disregarded one of the main objects of the
trust, viz., the giving of the annual Swamivatsal feast on
the ground that it is not expedient, desirable, necessary or
proper in the public interest to carry out this object. The
scheme disregards the basic principle that the trust funds
should be applied for effectuating the intention of the
founder of the trust as far as possible. The direction for
payment of one half of the accumulations to the Sad Vidya
Mandal on the ground that its object is analogous to the
object of the Jain Gyan Fund mentioned in item 8 of cl. 10
of the will is objectionable on the ground that the
freeships are not restricted to the Jains and also on the
ground that subject to giving the freeships the donee is
entitled to spend the corpus for other purposes. Moreover,
the purposes of the Sad Vidya Mandal and its freeships are
not analogous to the purposes of the Jain Gyan Fund, which
is a religious fund for imparting knowledge of Jain religion
and Jain Shastras. The direction for payment of one half of
the accumulated amount to the Sevashram Hospital is
objectionable on the ground that medical treatment of the
poor and deserving is not one of the objects specifically
mentioned in cl. 7 of the will. Both these directions are
also objectionable on the ground that they do not take into
account the original objects of the trust. For all these
reasons, the directions given by the Courts below must be
set aside.
822
In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the judgments and
decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. In lieu
of the directions given by the Courts below, we give the
following directions :
Out of the accumulations of the unexpended income up to the
25th October, 1956 amounting to Rs. 45,091-14-0 the trustees
will set apart a reasonable sum not exceeding Rs. 5,000 as a
working fund to meet current expenses. The trustees will
invest the balance amount in such manner as they think fit
in accordance with S. 35 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act,
1950. The trustees will spend and utilise every year one-
half of the annual income from these investments for the
charities mentioned in items 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10. 11 and 12 of
cl. 7 of the win of Jhaverchand Dahyabhai Shah, dated August
6, 1915 in such proportion and in such manner as the
trustees think fit and proper. The trustees will spend and
utilise every year the balance one-half of the annual income
of those investments for the annual Swamivatsal feast
(caste-dinner) mentioned in cl. 7 of the aforesaid will.
The disbursements to be made under these directions will be
in addition to the payments to be made by the trustees out
of the income of the investments of the original corpus of
the trust funds. Out of the net income of the investments
of the original corpus, the trustees will continue to make
the annual payments to the charities mentioned in items 1,
3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of cl. 7 of the aforesaid will and
will spend the balance income for giving the annual
Swamivatsal feasts. The trustees shall give the Swamivatsal
feast every year as far as possible. If for some reason the
feast cannot be given in any year, the amount spendable for
this object in that year should be spent for giving the
feast in the following years.
In the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties
will pay and bear their own costs throughout in this Court
as also in the Courts below, except that the trustees will
pay the sum of Rs. 64-8-0 to the Charity Commissioner and
the sum of Rs. 42-10-0 to opponents Nos. 6 to 13 to the
application, as originally directed by the District Judge.
Appeal allowed.
823