{"id":224672,"date":"1959-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959"},"modified":"2015-11-27T11:06:18","modified_gmt":"2015-11-27T05:36:18","slug":"mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959","title":{"rendered":"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special … on 15 April, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special … on 15 April, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 942, \t\t 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 503<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Das, S.K., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAHANT RAM SAROOP DASJI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.   P.\t  SAHI,\t SPECIAL  OFFICER-IN-CHARGE  OF\t THE   HINDU\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/04\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1959 AIR  942\t\t  1959 SCR  Supl. (2) 503\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1959 SC 951\t (4)\n R\t    1959 SC1002\t (6)\n F\t    1959 SC1073\t (9,14)\n R\t    1960 SC 554\t (8,9)\n E\t    1980 SC 161\t (12)\n RF\t    1991 SC 672\t (33)\n\n\nACT:\nHindu Religious Trusts Private Trusts-Applicability of Bihar\nHindu Religious Trusts Act-Religious Endowments, public\t and\nprivate-Distinction between-Definition of \" religious trust\"\n-scope\tand  Effect-Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts  Act,\t1950\n(Bihar 1 of 1951), SS. 2(1), 4(5), 30(1), 32, 48.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant as the Mahant of the Salouna asthal  made  an\napplication  in\t the  High  Court  under  Art.\t226  of\t the\nConstitution  praying  inter alia for the issue\t of  a\twrit\nquashing  the  order of the Bihar State Board  of  Religious\nTrusts requiring the appellant to submit a return of  income\nand  expenditure  under s. 59 Of the Bihar  Hindu  Religious\nTrusts\tAct,  1950,  on the grounds, inter  alia,  that\t the\nSalouna\t as  that  was\ta  private  institution\t and  not  a\nreligious  trust within the meaning of the Act and that\t the\nAct  did not apply to private trusts.  The High\t Court\ttook\nthe  view  that the language of s. 2(1) of  the\t Act,  which\ndefined\t a  \" religious trust \", was wide  enough  to  cover\nwithin\tits ambit both private and public trusts  recognised\nby Hindu law and that the Salouna asthal did not come within\nany of the two exceptions recognised by the section.\nHeld,  that on a true and proper construction of the  provi-\nsions  of the Act, considered in the background of  previous\nlegislative history with regard to religious, charitable  or\npious  trusts in India, the definition clause in s. 2(1)  of\nthe Act does not include within its ambit private trusts and\nthat the provisions of the Act do not apply to such trusts.\nThe  essential\tdistinction in Hindu law  between  religious\nendowments  which are public and those which are private  is\nthat in a public trust the beneficial interest is vested  in\nan  uncertain  and fluctuating body of persons,\t either\t the\npublic at large or some considerable portion of it answering\na   particular\tdescription  ;\tin  a  private\t trust\t the\nbeneficiaries  are definite and ascertained  individuals  or\nwho  within a time can be definitely ascertained.  The\tfact\nthat  the  uncertain and fluctuating body of  persons  is  a\nsection\t of  the public following  as  particular  religious\nfaith  or is only a sect of persons of a  certain  religious\npersuasion  would not make any difference in the matter\t and\nwould not make the trust a 'private trust.\n584\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 343 of 1955.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated September 13, 1954,
\nof  the\t Patna High Court in Misc.  Judl.  Case\t No.  39  of
\n1954.\n<\/p>\n
L.   K.\t Jha,  B.  K. P. Sinha and R.  C.  Prasad,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
Mahabir\t Prasad,  Advocate-General for the State  of  Bihar,
\nIshwari Nandan Prasad and S. P. Varma, for the respondents.
\n1959.\tApril 1,5.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nS.   K. DAS, J.-This appeal on a certificate granted by\t the
\nHigh  Court  of Patna is from a judgment of  the  said\tHigh
\nCourt  dated  September\t 13,  1954,  in\t a  writ  proceeding
\nnumbered  as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 39 of  1954  in
\nthat  court,  which  the  appellant  had  instituted  on  an
\napplication  made under Art. 226 of the Constitution in\t the
\ncircumstances stated below.\n<\/p>\n
It was alleged that one Mahatma Mast Ram” Hindu saint, owned
\nand  possessed\tconsiderable properties in the\tdistrict  of
\nMonghyr in the State of Bihar.\tAbout two hundred years ago,
\nhe  built a small temple at Salouna in which he installed  a
\ndeity called Sri Thakur Lakshmi Narainji.  This temple\tcame
\nto  be\tknown as the Salouna asthal.  Mast Ramji  died\tnear
\nabout  the year 1802.  He was succeeded in turn by  some  of
\nhis  disciples,\t one of whom was Mahant Lakshmi\t Dasji.\t  He
\nbuilt  a new temple in 1916 into which he removed the  deity
\nfrom  the old temple and installed two new deities, Sri\t Ram
\nand Sita. in 1919 Mahant Lakshmi Dasji died.  He left  three
\ndisciples,  Vishnu  Das, Bhagwat Das and Rameshwar  Das.   A
\ndispute arose among these disciples about succession to\t the
\ngaddi, which was settled sometime in February 1919.  By that
\nsettlement  it\twas arranged that Vishnu Das  would  succeed
\nMahant Lakshmi Das as the shebait and would be succeeded  by
\nBhagwat\t Das,  and thereafter the ablest “bairagi ”  of\t the
\nasthal,\t born  of  Brahmin parents, would  be  eligible\t for
\nappointment as
\n585<\/span>
\nshebait.   Bhagwat  Das died sometime in 1935  and  again  a
\ndispute arose between one Rameshwar Das, the youngest  chela
\nof Mahant Lakshmi Das, and Ram Saroop Das who is the present
\nMahant and appellant before us.\t Rameshwar Das, it  appears,
\nfiled  an  application under the  Charitable  and  Religious
\nTrusts\tAct  (XIV of 1920) for a direction upon\t Mahant\t Ram
\nSaroop\tDas  to\t render an account of the  usufruct  of\t the
\nasthal.\t This application was contested by Mahant Ram Saroop
\nDas,  who  said\t that the  properties  appertaining  to\t the
\nSalouna asthal did not constitute a public trust within\t the
\nmeaning\t of the provisions of the Charitable  and  Religious
\nTrusts\t Act  (XIV  of\t1920)  and  therefore  he  was\t not
\naccountable  to\t any  person.  Mahant Ram  Saroop  Das\talso
\napplied\t for  and  obtained permission under  s.  5  of\t the
\naforesaid Act to institute a suit for a declaration that the
\nSalouna asthal and the properties thereof did not constitute
\na public trust.\t Such a suit was brought in the court of the
\nSubordinate  Judge  of Monghyr who, however,  dismissed\t the
\nsuit.  Then, there was an appeal to the High Court of  Patna
\nand by the judgment and decree passed in First Appeal No. 10
\nof  1941  dated\t March\t5,  1943,  the\tHigh  Court  gave  a
\ndeclaration  to the effect that the Salouna asthal  and\t the
\nproperties appertaining thereto did not constitute a  public
\ntrust within the meaning of the provisions of the Charitable
\nand  Religious Trusts Act, (XIV of 1920).  Some eight  years
\nlater, the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 (Bihar I of
\n1951), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was passed by the
\nBihar  Legislature  and received the President’s  assent  on
\nFebruary  21, 1951.  It came into force on August 15,  1951.
\nThe  Bihar  State  Board of Religious  Trusts  (one  of\t the
\nrespondents  before  us) was constituted under this  Act  to
\ndischarge  in  regard to religious trusts  other  than\tJain
\nreligious  trusts  the functions assigned to  it  under\t the
\nseveral\t provisions of the Act.\t On November 14, 1952,\tthis
\nBoard, in exercise of the powers conferred on it under s. 59
\nof  the Act, asked the appellant to furnish to the  Board  a
\nreturn of the income and expenditure of the asthol.\n<\/p>\n
74<\/span>
\n586<\/span><\/p>\n
The  appellant replied by a letter dated December  1,  1952,
\nthat  the Salouna asthal was a private institution to  which
\nthe  Act did not apply, and also drew the attention  of\t the
\nBoard to the judgment and decree of the High Court in  First
\nAppeal No. 10 of 1941.\tThe Board, however, gave a reply  to
\nthe effect that it was not bound by the declaration made  by
\nthe  High  Court  and  asked  the  appellant  to  obtain   a
\ndeclaration in respect of his claim under the provisions  of
\nthe  Act or to submit a return.\t Thereafter’ on January\t 22,
\n1954,  the appellant made his application under Art. 226  of
\nthe  Constitution in which he averred (a) that\tthe  Salouna
\nasthal\twas not a religious trust within the meaning of\t the
\nAct;  (b) that the properties appertaining thereto  did\t not
\nconstitute  a  religious trust and the appellant was  not  a
\ntrustee within the meaning of the Act; (e) that the Act\t did
\nnot apply to private trusts; and (d) that the demand made by
\nthe  respondent Board amounted to an interference  with\t the
\nappellant’s fundamental right to hold the asthal properties.
\nThe  appellant\taccordingly prayed for the issue of  a\twrit
\nquashing  the  order of the respondent Board  requiring\t the
\nappellant  to submit a return of income and expenditure\t and
\nalso  for  an order directing the respondent Board  and\t its
\nofficers  to refrain from interfering with the appellant  in
\nhis  right  of\tmanagement of the  Salouna  asthal  and\t the
\nproperties appertaining thereto.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court of Patna by its judgment complained  against
\ndismissed the petition on the main ground that the  language
\nof  s. 2(1) of the Act, which defined a I  religious  trust’
\nfor the purposes of the Act, was wide enough to cover within
\nits ambit both private and public trusts recognised by Hindu
\nlaw  to\t be  religious, pious or  charitable  and  that\t the
\nSalouna asthal did not come within any of the two exceptions
\nrecognised  by the section, namely, (1) a trust created\t ac-
\ncording\t to Sikh religion or purely for the benefit  of\t the
\nSikh community; and (2) a private endowment created for\t the
\nworship\t of  a\tfamily\tidol in which  the  public  are\t not
\ninterested.  The High Court also held that the materials  on
\nthe record were not sufficient to decide
\n587<\/span>
\nthe  question whether the Salouna asthal and the  properties
\nthereof constituted a religious trust of a public character;
\nbut  proceeding\t on  the footing that  the  Act\t applied  to
\nprivate trusts, it expressed the view that the\trestrictions
\nimposed on the trustee by the several provisions of the\t Act
\nwere not violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under
\nArt. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, inasmuch as there was  no
\nlegal reason why the State should not exercise\tsuperintend-
\nence  and control over the administration of private  trusts
\nas  in\tthe  case of public trusts.   In  a  judgment  dated
\nOctober\t 5,  1953, dealing with the same  question  in\tsome
\nearlier\t cases,\t the High Court had,  however,\texpressed  a
\nsomewhat  different  view.   It had  then  referred  to\t the
\nprinciple  that when a legislature with limited power  makes
\nuse  of a word of wide and general import,  the\t presumption
\nmust be that it is using the word with reference to what  it
\nis  competent to legislate, and adopting that  principle  it
\nsaid that s. 2(1) of the Act should be read in a  restricted
\nsense  so as to include only Hindu religious  or  charitable
\ntrusts\tof a public character and the provisions of the\t Act
\nwould accordingly apply to such trusts only.
\nThe  principal\tpoint  urged  before us\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant  is one of construction-do the provisions  of\t the
\nAct  apply to private religious trusts?\t The  contention  of
\nthe appellant is that they do not.  It is necessary to refer
\nat this stage to some of the relevant provisions of the Act.
\nIn  connected Civil Appeals Nos. 225, 226, 228, 229 and\t 248
\nof 1955 (1) in which also we are delivering judgment  today,
\nwe  have referred to the provisions of the Act\tin  somewhat
\ngreater\t detail.   In  this appeal we shall  refer  to\tsuch
\nprovisions only as have a bearing on the principal point.
\nWe start with the definition clause in s. 2 (1).  It says-
\n”  religious trust’ means any express 6r constructive  trust
\ncreated or existing for any purpose recognised by Hindu\t Law
\nto be religious, pious or charitable, but shall not  include
\na trust created according to the Sikh religion or purely for
\nthe benefit of the Sikh
\n(1)  Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi,<\/a> see P. 563 ante.\n<\/p>\n
588<\/span><\/p>\n
community and a private endowment created for the worship of
\na family idol in which the public are not interested
\nThe  expression\t ‘trust\t property ‘ in a. 2  (p)  means\t the
\nproperty   appertaining\t to  a\treligious  trust   and\t the
\nexpression ‘trustee’ in s. 2 (n) is defined in the following
\nterms-\n<\/p>\n
”  I  trustee’\tmeans any person,  by  whatever\t designation
\nknown,\tappointed  to administer a  religious  trust  either
\nverbally  or  by  or  under any deed  or  instrument  or  in
\naccordance  with the usage of such trust or by the  District
\nJudge  or  any other competent authority, and  includes\t any
\nperson\tappointed  by a trustee to perform the duties  of  a
\ntrustee\t and any member of a Committee or any  other  person
\nfor the time being managing or administering any trust\tpro-
\nperty as such; “.\n<\/p>\n
The  next  important  section for our purpose  is  s.  4  as
\namended\t by  Bihar Act, XVI of 1954, which gives  effect  to
\ncertain amendments and repeals.\t Sub-section (5) of s. 4  is
\nin these terms-\n<\/p>\n
“The  Religious\t Endowments  Act, 1863\t(XX  of\t 1863),\t and
\nsection 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908),
\nshall  not  apply to any religious trust in this  State,  as
\ndefined in this Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Chapter\t V  of the Act contains a series of  sections  which
\ndelimit\t the  powers  and  duties  of  the  State  Board  of
\nReligious  Trusts.  Section 28, the opening section  of\t the
\nchapter, states the general powers and duties of the  Board.
\nSection 29(1) has a bearing on the question at issue  before
\nus.   It states inter alia that where the supervision  of  a
\nreligious  trust is vested in any committee  or\t association
\nappointed  by  the  founder  or\t by  a\tcompetent  court  or
\nauthority,  such committee or association shall continue  to
\nfunction  under the general superintendence and\t control  of
\nthe Board unless superseded by the Board under sub-S. (2) of
\nthe  section.  If an order of supersensible is\tpassed,\t the
\ncommittee  or association or any other person interested  in
\nthe  religious trust may within 30 days of the order of\t the
\nBoard  under sub-s. (2) make an application to the  District
\nJudge for varying, modifying or setting aside
\n589<\/span>
\nthe  order  of supersession.  Section 30, so far  as  it  is
\nrelevant for our purpose, states-\n<\/p>\n
”  When any object of a religious trust has ceased to  exist
\nor  has, in the opinion of the Board, become  impossible  of
\nachievement,  the  Board may, of its own motion\t or  on\t the
\napplication  of\t any  Hindu, after  issuing  notice  in\t the
\nprescribed manner, to the trustee of such trust and to\tsuch
\nother  person  as may appear to the Board to  be  interested
\ntherein\t and  after making such inquiry as  it\tthinks\tfit,
\ndetermine  the object (which sfiall be similar or as  nearly
\nsimilar\t as  practicable to the object which has  ceased  to
\nexist  or  become impossible of achievement)  to  which\t the
\nfunds,\tproperty or income of the trust or so much  of\tsuch
\nfund,  property or income as was previously expended  on  or
\napplied\t to the object which has ceased to exist  or  become
\nimpossible  of\tachievement, shall be a plied.”\t Section  32
\ndefines the power of the Board to settle schemes for  proper
\nadministration of religious trusts.  It states:
\n” 32(1).  The Board may, of its own motion or on application
\nmade to it in this behalf by two or more persons  interested
\nin any trust,-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  settle  a scheme for such religious trust after  making
\nsuch  inquiry  as  it thinks fit and giving  notice  to\t the
\ntrustee of such trust and to such other person as may appear
\nto the Board to be interested therein;\n<\/p>\n
 (b)  in  like manner and subject to  the  like\t conditions,
\nmodify\tany scheme settled under this section or  under\t any
\nother law or substitute another scheme in its stead:
\nProvided that any scheme so settled, modified or substituted
\nshall be in accordance with the law governing the trust\t and
\nshall not be contrary to the wishes of the founder so far as
\nsuch  wishes  can  be ascertained.  (2)\t A  scheme  settled,
\nmodified or substituted instead of another scheme under this
\nsection\t shall,\t unless otherwise ordered  by  the  District
\nJudge on an application, if any, made under sub-section\t (3)
\ncome  into  force on a day to be appointed by the  Board  in
\nthis behalf and shall be published in the official gazette.\n<\/p>\n
590<\/span><\/p>\n
(3)  The trustee of, or any other person interested in, such
\ntrust,\tmay  within  three  months  from  the  date  of\t the
\npublication  in\t the  official\tgazette\t of  the  scheme  so
\nsettled, modified or substituted instead of another  scheme,
\nas  the\t case may be, make an application  to  the  District
\nJudge  for varying, modifying or setting aside\tthe  scheme;
\nbut, subject to the result of such application, the order of
\nthe Board under sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be final\t and
\nbinding\t upon  the trustee of the religious trust  and\tupon
\nevery other person interested in such religious trust.
\n(4)  An\t  order\t passed\t by  the  District  Judge   on\t any
\napplication  made under sub-section (3) shall be final.”  It
\nmay  be here stated that the expression ” person  interested
\nin religious trust ” is defined in s. 2(g).  The  definition
\nis in these terms-\n<\/p>\n
”  ”  person  interested in a religious trust  ”  means\t any
\nperson\twho  is entitled to receive any pecuniary  or  other
\nbenefit\t from a religious trust and includes,
\n(1) any person who has a right to worship or to perform\t any
\nrite,  or  to attend at the performance of  any\t worship  or
\nrite, in any religious institution connected with such trust
\nor   to\t  participate  in  any\t religious   or\t  charitable
\nministration under such trust;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) the founder and any descendant of the founder;    and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  the trustee;”.\n<\/p>\n
The only other section which need be quoted in full is s.   48
\nof the Act which is in these terms:-\n<\/p>\n
”  48(1).  The Board, or with the previous sanction  of\t the
\nBoard,\tany person interested in a religious trust may\tmake
\nan application to the District Judge for an order-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  removing  the trustee of such religious trust, if\tsuch
\ntrustee-\n<\/p>\n
(1)  acts  in  a manner prejudicial to the interest  of\t the
\nsaid trust; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) defaults  on three or more occasions in the payment  of
\nany amount payable under any law for the time-being in force
\nin  respect of the property or income of the said  trust  or
\nany other statutory charge on such property or income; or
\n591<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  defaults on three or more occasions in the payment
\nof any sum payable to any beneficiary under the said  trust,
\nor in discharging any other duty imposed upon him under\t it;
\nor\n<\/p>\n
(iv)   is guilty of a breach of trust.\n<\/p>\n
(b)  appointing a new trustee;\n<\/p>\n
(e)  vesting any property in a trustee;\n<\/p>\n
(d)  directing accounts and inquiries; or\n<\/p>\n
(e)  granting such further or other relief as the nature  of
\nthe case may require.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  The order of the District Judge under sub-. section (1)
\nshall be final “.\n<\/p>\n
Now,  the argument on behalf of the appellant is that  on  a
\ntrue and proper construction of the aforesaid provisions  of
\nthe   Act,   considered\t in  the  background   of   previous
\nlegislative history with regard to religious, charitable  or
\npious trusts in India, the definition clause in s. 2 (1)  of
\nthe Act is confined to religious, pious or charitable trusts
\nof  a  public nature recognised as such by  Hindu  law.\t  In
\norder  to appreciate this argument it is necessary to  state
\nfirst  the  distinction\t in  Hindu  law\t between   religious
\nendowments which are public and those which are private.  To
\nput  it\t briefly,  the essential distinction is\t that  in  a
\npublic\ttrust  the  beneficial\tinterest  is  vested  in  an
\nuncertain and fluctuating body of persons, either the public
\nat  large  or some considerable portion of  it\tanswering  a
\nparticular description; in a private trust the beneficiaries
\nare  definite  and ascertained individuals or who  within  a
\ndefinite time can be definitely ascertained.  The fact\tthat
\nthe  uncertain and fluctuating body of persons is a  section
\nof  the public following a particular religious faith or  is
\nonly  a\t sect of persons of a certain  religious  persuasion
\nwould  not make any difference in the matter and  would\t not
\nmake the trust a private trust (see the observations in Nabi
\nShirazi v. Province of Bengal) (1).  The distinction in this
\nrespect\t between  English law and Hindu law  has  been\tthus
\nstated\tby Dr. Mukherjea in his Tagore Law Lectures  on\t the
\nHindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts (1952  Edition,
\npp.  392-396):\t,,In  English  law  charitable\ttrusts\t are
\nsynonymous
\n(1)  (1942) I.L.R. I cal. 211, 228.\n<\/p>\n
592<\/span><\/p>\n
with  public  trusts and what is called religious  trust  is
\nonly  a\t form of charitable trust.  The beneficiaries  in  a
\ncharitable  trust being the general public or a\t section  of
\nthe  same  and not a determinate body  of  individuals,\t the
\nremedies  for enforcement of charitable trust  are  somewhat
\ndifferent   from   those  which\t can  be   availed   of\t  by
\nbeneficiaries in a private trust.  In English law the  Crown
\nas  parens  patriae is the constitutional protector  of\t all
\nproperty  subject  to charitable trusts, such  trusts  being
\nessentially   matters\tof   public   concern……..\t One
\nfundamental distinction between English and Indian law\tlies
\nin  the fact that there can be religious trust of a  private
\ncharacter  under Hindu law which is not possible in  English
\nlaw “.\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf of the appellant it has been pointed out that  so
\nfar as public religious and charitable trusts are concerned,
\nthere  are a number of legislative enactments, both  general
\nand  local,  which  aim at controlling\tthe  management\t and
\nadministration\tof such trusts and provide for\tremedies  in
\ncases  of  maladministration, So far  as  private  religious
\ntrusts\tare  concerned,\t there\tare  no\t specific  statutory
\nenactments and such trusts are regulated by the general\t law
\nof  the\t land.\tThe British Government, when  it  was  first
\nestablished in India, following the tradition of the  former
\nrulers,\t asserted by virtue of its sovereign  authority\t the
\nright  to visit public religious and  charitable  endowments
\nand  to prevent and redress abuses in their  management.   A
\nRegulation  for\t that purpose was passed in Bengal  in\t1810
\n(Regulation  XIX  of  1810)  and  one  for  Madras  in\t1817
\n(Regulation  VII  of  1817).  In Bombay\t also  there  was  a
\nRegulation (XVII of 1827) which related to endowments of the
\nsame character.\t In 1863 was passed the Religious Endowments
\nAct  (XX  of  1863), which repealed the\t Bengal\t and  Madras
\nRegulations  in so far as they related to  purely  religious
\ninstitutions  and  their control was  transferred  from\t the
\nBoard  of  Revenue  to-non-official  committees\t constituted
\nunder the Act of 1863.\tIt is worthy of note, however,\tthat
\nthe Act of 1863 also applied to public religious  endowments
\nonly.\tIn course of time it was found that the Act of\t1863
\ndid not provide adequate protec.\n<\/p>\n
593<\/span><\/p>\n
tion  to public religious trust against abuses which led  to
\ntheir control by the State and the remedies provided by that
\nAct  did  not  go  far enough.\t Then  came  the  Charitable
\nEndowments  Act, 1890 (VI of 1890), and the  Charitable\t and
\nReligious  Trusts  Act, 1920 (XVI of 1920),  both  of  which
\nrelated to public trusts ; the former related exclusively to
\npublic\ttrusts\tfor  charitable\t purposes  unconnected\twith
\nreligious  teaching or worship while the latter\t related  to
\ntrusts\tcreated\t for  public purposes  of  a  charitable  or
\nreligious  nature.   In the Civil Procedure Code of  1877  a
\nspecific section was introduced, viz., s. 539, under which a
\nsuit  could be instituted in case of any alleged  breach  of
\nany  express  or  constructive\ttrust  created\tfor   public
\nreligious  or charitable purposes.  This section  was  later
\namended,  and  in this amended form it became s. 92  of\t the
\npresent Civil Procedure Code, the first condition  necessary
\nto bring a case within its purview being the existence of  a
\ntrust,\twhether express or constructive for public  purposes
\nof  a  religious or charitable nature.\tIt is  clear  beyond
\ndoubt  that a private trust is outside the operation  of  s.
\n92,  Civil Procedure Code.  Of the local Acts, the  earliest
\nwas that of the Bombay Presidency of the year 1863.  In more
\nrecent\t years\twere  passed  the  Orissa  Hindu   Religious
\nEndowments  Act, 1939, the Bombay Public Trusts\t Act,  1950,
\nand  the  Madras Hindu Religious and  Charitable  Endowments
\nAct,   1951,  all  of  which  relate  to  public   religious
\ninstitutions and endowments.  No local Act has been  brought
\nto  our\t notice\t which clearly\tor  unmistakenly  sought  to
\ninclude within its ambit private religious trusts.
\nOn behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that though
\nthe definition clause in s. 2 (1) of the Act is expressed in
\nwide  language,\t other provisions of the Act make  it  clear
\nthat it is confined to public trusts only.  Section 2 (1) of
\nthe  Act,  we have pointed out, recognises  two\t exceptions:
\nfirst,\ta  trust created according to the Sikh\treligion  or
\npurely for the benefit of the Sikh community; and, second, a
\nprivate endowment created for the worship of a family  idol,
\nin which the public are not interested.\t It is not  disputed
\n75<\/span>
\n594<\/span>
\nthat the second exception is an instance of a private trust,
\nin which the public are not interested.\t The High Court\t has
\ntaken  the  view  that inasmuch\t as  the  definition  clause
\nmentions  by  way  of an exception only one  instance  of  a
\nprivate endowment, all private endowments created  otherwise
\nthan  for  the\tworship of a family idol  must\tbe  included
\nwithin\tthe  definition\t Of the maxim  of  expression  unius
\nexclusio alterius.  We do not think that this view is  quite
\ncorrect.  First of all, let us examine some other provisions
\nof the Act which specifically refer to the definition clause
\nand  see what the legislature has itself taken it  to  mean.
\nTake, for example, s. 4 of the Act, as amended by Bihar Act,
\nXVI  of\t 1954.\t This section  amends  and  repeals  certain
\nearlier\t Acts like the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890,\t and
\nthe Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, both of which
\nwe  have already pointed out related exclusively  to  public
\ntrusts.\t  Sub-s.  (5)  of s. 4\tstates\tthat  the  Religious
\nEndowments  Act,  1863,\t and  s. 92 of\tthe  Code  of  Civil
\nProcedure,  1908, shall not apply to any religious trust  in
\nthe State, as defined in this Act.  The Religious Endowments
\nAct,  1863, and s. 92, Civil Procedure Code,-both  apply  to
\npublic\ttrusts; they have no application to private  trusts.
\nIf the definition clause was intended to include within\t its
\nambit private trusts (other than those created for the\twor-
\nship  of a family idol), then it is difficult to  understand
\nwhy sub-s. (5) of s. 4 should be worded as it has been done.
\nThat sub-section in effect says that two earlier  enactments
\nwhich apply exclusively to public trusts shall not apply  to
\nany trust (we emphasise the word ‘ any ‘) as defined in\t the
\nAct.   If  private  trusts created otherwise  than  for\t the
\nworship of a family idol were included in the definition  of
\nreligious  trust,  then sub-s. (5) was\tentirely  otiose  or
\nredundant so far as those private trusts were concerned\t for
\nthe  earlier enactments never applied to them.\tThe  obvious
\nindication is that all trusts defined in the Act are  public
\ntrusts\tand, therefore, it became necessary to\texclude\t the
\noperation of earlier enactments which but for the  exclusion
\nwould have applied to such trusts.  If the intention of sub-
\ns. (5) of s. 4 was to exclude some, trusts
\n595<\/span>
\nonly out of many included within the definition clause\tfrom
\nthe operation of the earlier enactments, as is contended for
\nby  the learned Advocate-General of Bihar, then the  use  of
\nthe word ‘any’ appears to us to be particularly inapt.\tSub-
\nsection\t (5) of s. 4 was amended by Bihar Act XVI  of  1954.
\nBefore the amendment it read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
” S. 4(5).  The Religious Endowments Act, 1863, and  section
\n92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall not apply  to
\nany Hindu Religious Trust in the State of Bihar.”
\nPrior to the amendment, sub-s. (5) made no reference to\t the
\ndefinition  clause; it merely said that two of\tthe  earlier
\nenactments  shall not apply to any Hindu Religious Trust  in
\nthe  State  of\tBihar.\t The  amended  subsection,  however,
\nspecifically refers to the definition clause and states that
\ntwo  of the earlier enactments, which apply only  to  public
\ntrusts,\t shall\tnot apply to any trusts, as defined  in\t the
\nAct.  In our opinion, by sub-s. (5) of s. 4 the\t Legislature
\nitself has spoken and indicated the true scope and effect of
\nthe definition clause.\n<\/p>\n
Secondly, it may be asked why the legislature having  before
\nit  the\t earlier enactments which applied to  public  trusts
\nonly,  failed  to  use the word ‘public ‘  before  the\tword
\n‘purpose’  in the definition clause ?  This is\ta  pertinent
\nquestion  which\t must be faced.\t The answer,  we  think,  is
\nthis.\tCharitable trusts are public trusts, both under\t the
\nEnglish and Indian law; in England a religious trust being a
\nform  of  charitable  trust is also public,  but  in  India,
\naccording  to  Hindu law, religious trust may be  public  or
\nprivate.  But the most usual and commonest form of a private
\nreligious  trust is one created for the worship of a  family
\nidol in which the public are not interested.  Any other pri-
\nvate  religious\t trust must be very rare  and  difficult  to
\nthink  of.’ Dealing with the distinction between public\t and
\nprivate endowments in Hindu law, Sir Dinshah Mulla has\tsaid
\nat p. 529 of his Principles of Hindu Law (11th edition)-
\n”  Religious endowments are either public or private.  In  a
\npublic endowment the dedication is for
\n596<\/span>
\nthe  use  or benefit of the public.  When  property  is\t set
\napart  for the worship of a family god in which\t the  public
\nare not interested, the endowment is a private one “.
\nObviously  enough, the definition clause merely\t quotes\t the
\ntypical example of a private endowment mentioned above.\t  It
\nis  also  significant  that the exclusion  of  an  endowment
\ncreated\t for  the worship of a family idol is based  on\t the
\nadjectival  clause  which follows it, viz., ” in  which\t the
\npublic\tare not interested “. In other words, the  exclusion
\nis  based on the essential distinction between a public\t and
\nprivate trust in Hindu law.  If the test is that the  public
\nor any section thereof are not interested in the trust, such
\na test is characteristic of all private trusts in Hindu law.
\nIt  also  shows that there may be a trust  created  for\t the
\nworship\t of  a\tfamily\tidol in\t which\tthe  public  may  be
\ninterested.   Those  are  cases of trust which\tbegan  as  a
\nprivate trust but which eventually came to be thrown open to
\nthe  public.   This also indicates that the  definition\t was
\nintended to cover only public trusts.\n<\/p>\n
We  now\t turn to some of the other provisions  of  the\tAct,
\nwhich we have earlier quoted.  Section 29(1) which talks  of
\nsupervision  of\t a  religious  trust  being  vested  in\t any
\ncommittee  or association appointed by the founder or  by  a
\ncompetent  court or authority is ordinarily  appropriate  in
\nthe  case  of  a public trust  only.   Section\t30(1)  which
\nembodies  the doctrine of cypress permits any Hindu to\tmake
\nan  application\t for  invoking the power  of  the  Board  to
\ndetermine the object to which funds, property and income  of
\na religious trust shall be applied where the original object
\nof the trust has ceased to exist or has become impossible of
\nachievement.  This section is also inappropriate in the case
\nof  a private trust, the obvious reason being that  any\t and
\nevery Hindu cannot be interested in a private trust so as to
\ngive him a locus stand to make the application.\t Further, it
\nis difficult to visualise that a Hindu private rebutter will
\nfail, for a deity is immortal.\tEven if the idol gets broken
\nor  is lost or stolen, another image may be consecrated\t and
\nit  cannot  be said that the original object has  ceased  to
\nexist.\tSec-\n<\/p>\n
597<\/span><\/p>\n
tion 32 is an important section of the Act and confers power
\non the Board to settle schemes for proper administration  of
\nreligious trusts.  Now, the section says that the Board\t may
\nexercise the power of its own motion or on application\tmade
\nto  it in this behalf by two, or more persons interested  in
\nany trust.  The language of the section follows closely\t the
\nlanguage of s. 92,  Civil  Procedure  Code, so\tfar  as\t the
\nphrase ” two or\t    more  persons interested in any trust  ”
\nis concerned. It    is\tdifficult to understand why  in\t the
\ncase of a private trust, it should be necessary that two  or
\nmore   persons\tinterested  in\tthe  trust  must  make\t the
\napplication  to\t settle\t a scheme for such a  trust.   In  a
\nprivate\t or family rebutter the beneficiaries are a  limited
\nand defined class of persons, as for example, the members of
\na   family.   If  the  trustee\tor  shebait  is\t guilty\t  of
\nmismanagement,\t waste,\t wrongful  alienation  of   debutter
\nproperty or other neglect of duties, a suit can certainly be
\ninstituted  for remedying these abuses of trust.  Under\t the
\ngeneral law of the land the founder of the endowment, or any
\nof  his\t heirs is competent to institute a suit\t for  proper
\nadministration\tof  the\t debutter, for removal\tof  the\t old
\ntrustee\t and  for  appointment\tof a new  one.\t It  is\t not
\nnecessary in such a case that two or more persons interested
\nin the trust must join in order to institute the suit.\t The
\ncondition of ” two or more persons ” is appropriate only  to
\na  public trust, the reason being that a public trust  is  a
\nmatter\tof  public concern.  Section 48 of the Act  is\talso
\nanalogous to s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and one of
\nthe reasons for excluding the operation of s. 92 of the Code
\nof Civil Procedure from trusts as defined by the Act is\t the
\nexistence of provisions in the Act which are analogous to s.
\n92  of\tthe Code of Civil Procedure.  This section  is\talso
\nmore  appropriate to public trusts than to  private  trusts.
\nIn  fact,  the\tAct contains  provisions,  as  the  preamble
\nstates,\t for  the better administration of  Hindu  religious
\ntrusts\tin  the State of Bihar and for\tthe  protection\t and
\npreservation  of properties appertaining to such trusts\t and
\nfor  that  purpose  certain  earlier  enactments  like\t the
\nReligious  Endowments Act, 1863, the  Charitable  Endowments
\nAct, 1890,
\n598<\/span>
\nthe Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 and the  Civil
\nProcedure  Code, 1908, have either been amended or  excluded
\nfrom  operation.  All those earlier enactments related\tonly
\nto public trusts and if the intention was that the Act would
\napply  to  private  trusts as well, one\t would\texpect\tthat
\nintention would be made clear by the use of unambiguous lan-
\nguage.\tWe find, on the contrary, that though the definition
\nclause\tin s. 2(1) is expressed in somewhat  wide  language,
\nsub-s.\t(5)  of\t s. 4 makes clear what the  true  scope\t and
\neffect of the definition clause is.\n<\/p>\n
For  the  reasons given above, we hold that  the  definition
\nclause does not include within its ambit private trusts\t and
\nthe Act and its provisions do not apply to such trusts.
\nLearned\t counsel  for the appellant has in  the\t alternative
\nargued before us that if the Act applies to private  trusts,
\nseveral\t  of  its  provisions  will  be\t violative  of\t the
\nfundamental right guaranteed to citizens under Art. 19(1)(f)
\nof  the\t Constitution inasmuch as the  restrictions  imposed
\nthereby\t on trustees of private trusts, in which the  public
\nare  not  interested,  cannot  be  justified  as  reasonable
\nrestrictions  in the interests of the general public  within
\nthe meaning of cl. (5) of Art. 19.  The High Court negatived
\nthis  argument by adopting the rule of English law  that  in
\nthe case of a charitable corporation where the founder is  a
\nprivate person, he and his heirs become visitors in law\t and
\nwhere  such heirs are extinct or incompetent,  their  powers
\ndevolve\t on the Crown or the State; therefore, it is in\t the
\ninterests  of  the  general public  that  the  State  should
\nexercise superintendence and control over the administration
\nof  private  trusts as in the case of public  trusts.\tThis
\nview  of the High Court has been seriously contested  before
\nus, and learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
\nthere  is  no  war. rant for the adoption  of  the  rule  of
\nEnglish\t law in view of the fundamental distinction  between
\nEnglish\t and Hindu law as to private religious\ttrusts.\t  He
\nhas  also drawn our attention to the following\tobservations
\nof  Dr.\t Mukherjea (Hindu Law of  Religious  and  Charitable
\nTrust, 1952 Edition, p. 393) on this point:\n<\/p>\n
599<\/span><\/p>\n
,,In English law there is a ‘ visitatorial ‘ power  attached
\nto  all eleemosynary corporations.  A visitor has the  right
\nto  settle disputes between members of the  corporation,  to
\ninspect and regulate their actions and generally to  correct
\nall  abuses  and  irregularities in  the  administration  of
\ncharity.   The law allows to the founder of an\teleemosynary
\ninstitution full powers to make regulations for its creation
\nand  such powers include the right of  nominating  visitors.
\nUnder  the  law\t of England as it stood before\t1926,  if  a
\nprivate person was the founder of a charitable\tcorporation,
\nthen  he  and his heirs became automatically  the  visitors.
\nThe descent of the rights of a visitor to heirs has now been
\nabolished by the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, and it
\nis  not\t clear\tas to who would be  visitor  in\t default  of
\nappointment by the founder.  Most probably such rights would
\ndevolve upon the Crown as they did when the founder’s  heirs
\nbecame\textinct\t or  could not be found or the\their  was  a
\nlunatic.”\n<\/p>\n
He  has further submitted that whatever be the\tposition  in
\nEnglish\t law,  the  guarantee of a  fundamental\t right\tmust
\ndepend on the terms of Art. 19 of the Constitution and\tsuch
\nguarantee  cannot be whittled down by  importing  artificial
\nrules of English law.\n<\/p>\n
In  view of our finding on the question of  construction  of
\nthe  definition\t clause\t read  with  s.\t 4  (5)\t and   other
\nprovisions  of\tthe  Act,  we  consider\t it  unnecessary  to
\npronounce  finally  on the contentions referred\t to  in\t the
\npreceding  paragraph, except merely to state that a  serious
\nquestion   of\tthe  constitutional  validity\tof   several
\nprovisions  of the Act would have undoubtedly arisen if\t the
\nAct were held to apply to private trusts as well.
\nOn  our\t finding  that, the Act does not  apply\t to  private
\ntrusts, the appellant is entitled to succeed in his  appeal.
\nThe High Court has said that the materials on the record  of
\nthe  case are not sufficient to decide the question  whether
\nthe  Salouna  asthal  and  the\tproperties  of\tthe   mahant
\nconstitute  a trust of a public character.   This  question,
\nhowever,  was the subject of a contested litigation and\t the
\nappellant had obtained a declaration in First Appeal No.  10
\nof 1941 that the Salouna asthal
\n600<\/span>
\nand the properties appertaining there to did not  constitute
\na  public trust.  The respondents were not parties  to\tthat
\nlitigation  and\t may not be bound by that judgment;  but  on
\nbehalf\tof the respondents no affidavit was filed  nor\twere
\nany materials placed to show that the position is  different
\nfrom  what was declared by the High Court.  The\t High  Court
\ncommented  on  the fact that the appellant did\tnot  produce
\nbefore\tthe  court all the documents in his  possession.   A
\npetition has been filed before us for taking in evidence the
\ndocuments  which were considered by the High Court in  First
\nAppeal\tNo.  10\t of  1941.  We do  not\tthink  that  in\t the
\ncircumstances of this case it is necessary to consider\tthat
\nevidence  afresh.   As long as the declaration made  by\t the
\nHigh Court in First Appeal No. 10 of 1941 stands and in\t the
\nabsence\t of some evidence to the contrary, the appellant  is
\nentitled  to say that the Salouna asthal and the  properties
\nappertaining  thereto do not ‘Constitute a public trust\t and
\nthe Act and its provisions do not apply to it.
\nOur attention has been drawn to s. 43 of the Act as  amended
\nby Act XVII of 1956.  That section says inter alia that\t all
\ndisputes as to whether any immovable property is or is not a
\ntrust  property\t shall be inquired into, either on  its\t own
\nmotion\tor on an application, by the authority appointed  in
\nthis  behalf by the State Government by notification in\t the
\nofficial gazette.  Without. expressing any opinion as to the
\nconstitutional validity of s. 43 of the Act we merely  point
\nout  that no decision has been given under s. 43 of the\t Act
\n(as  it\t stood\tprior or after the  amendment)\tagainst\t the
\nappellant   in\trespect\t of  the  Salouna  asthal  and\t the
\nproperties  appertaining thereto.  It would be open  to\t the
\nrespondents  to take such steps as may be available to\tthem
\nin  law to get it determined by a competent  authority\tthat
\nthe trust in question is a public trust.\n<\/p>\n
We  would  accordingly\tallow this  appeal,  set  aside\t the
\njudgment  and  order of the High Court dated  September\t 13,
\n1954,  and direct the issue of an appropriate writ  quashing
\nthe order of the respondent Board calling upon the appellant
\nto file a statement of income and expenditure with regard to
\nthe properties of the Salouna
\n601<\/span>
\nasthal and also prohibiting the respondents from interfering
\nwith  the rights of the appellant in the management  of\t the
\nSalouna\t asthal\t and the  properties  appertaining  thereto,
\nunless and until the respondents have obtained the necessary
\ndetermination  that  the Salouna asthal is a  public  trust.
\nThe appellant will be entitled to his costs throughout.
\nAppeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special … on 15 April, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 942, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 503 Author: S Das Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Das, S.K., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: MAHANT RAM SAROOP DASJI Vs. RESPONDENT: S. P. SAHI, SPECIAL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224672","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-27T05:36:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special … on 15 April, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-27T05:36:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959\"},\"wordCount\":6242,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959\",\"name\":\"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-27T05:36:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special … on 15 April, 1959\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-27T05:36:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special … on 15 April, 1959","datePublished":"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-27T05:36:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959"},"wordCount":6242,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959","name":"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-27T05:36:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-ram-saroop-dasji-vs-s-p-sahi-special-on-15-april-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs S. P. Sahi, Special … on 15 April, 1959"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224672","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224672"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224672\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224672"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224672"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224672"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}