Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi vs. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and Others.
Dated: April 25, 2024.
Court: Supreme Court of India.
Quorum: Hon’ble J. A.S. Bopanna, J. Sanjay Kumar.
The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgment dated April 25, 2024, delivered a significant ruling in the case of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi vs. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and others. The case revolves around the acceptance of Change Reports concerning the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, a Public Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
Facts of the case:
Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, was registered as a Public Trust in 1952 by Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil for the upkeep and maintenance of Shri Mallikarjun Temple at Shelgi. The mode of succession of managership and trusteeship, as provided in the application, was that Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil would be the Vahiwatdar of the Trust, and the eldest male member of his family would succeed him. After Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil’s death in 1992, his eldest son, Ashok Mallikarjun Patil, became the Vahiwatdar. Subsequently, upon Ashok’s demise in 1997, his brother Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil, the third son of Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil, assumed the role of Vahiwatdar, although he was not the eldest male member in the family.
Legal issues:
- What is the effect of delay in filing a Change Report under Section 22 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and whether such delay can be condoned? If so, what is the procedure for condonation of delay?
- Can mere devotees of a Temple, who have previously failed in challenging the registration of the Public Trust itself, legitimately object to the succession and appointment of the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of the Trust through the Change Report mechanism under the Act?
Legal provisions:
The Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950
- Section 17: Maintenance of books, indices, and registers containing particulars of Public Trusts.
- Section 18: Registration of Public Trusts.
- Section 22: Reporting of changes in the entries recorded in the register and the procedure for accepting such changes.
- Section 70: Appeals against the findings or orders of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner.
- Section 70A: Revision powers of the Charity Commissioner.
Contentions of petitioner:
The learned counsel of the petitioner Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil, being the third son of the founder Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil, filed a delay condonation application along with Change Report No. 899 of 2015, seeking condonation of the delay in filing the report to inform the authorities about his assumption as the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) of the Trust after the demise of his elder brother Ashok Mallikarjun Patil in 1997. Even though there was no specific proviso in Section 22(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (the Act) for condonation of delay before the 2017 amendment, the general provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be invoked for condonation of the delay in filing the Change Report.
The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, had already passed an order on January 29, 2019, holding that the delay in filing Change Report No. 899 of 2015 stood condoned by accepting the Change Report itself, thereby implying that the delay was excused. After the earlier dismissal of the revision filed by the Birajdar family challenging the very registration of the Trust, they had no legitimate grievance or locus standi as mere devotees to challenge the succession to the post of Vahiwatdar, which was a matter concerning the administration of the Trust by the founder’s family.
Contentions of respondents:
The learned counsel of the respondent Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil, being the third son, was not the eldest male member of the founder Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil’s family. Therefore, he had unlawfully and without any authority assumed the role of Vahiwatdar by filing Change Report No. 899 of 2015, circumventing the established mode of succession. The Deputy Charity Commissioner, Solapur, had failed to conduct a proper inquiry and had not passed a separate explicit order condoning the inordinate delay of over 17 years in filing Change Report No. 899 of 2015, as mandated under Section 22 of the Act, thereby rendering the acceptance of the Change Report illegal.
After the death of Ashok Mallikarjun Patil, the eldest son of the founder, the villagers were handling the functioning and administration of the Trust themselves, and Jagdishchandra was merely overseeing the Temple activities without any legal authority. The Trust, under the administration of Jagdishchandra and the Trustees appointed by him, was not taking proper care of the Temple and its activities, and therefore, the changes in the administration through the acceptance of Change Reports No. 899 of 2015 and No. 1177 of 2017 should not have been allowed.
The Judgment:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and confirmed the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017. The Court observed that the delay in filing a Change Report is curable, and the failure to file a Change Report within the stipulated time does not automatically invalidate the assumption of office by the Vahiwatdar or the changes in the Trust. The Act does not mandate that a separate written application be filed for condonation of delay. Relief can be granted upon an oral request, provided sufficient cause is shown. The proviso added to Section 22(1) in 2017, enabling the authority to condone the delay, is clarificatory and does not bring about a substantive change. Even before the amendment, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could be invoked for condonation of delay.
The Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, had already passed an order on January 29, 2019, holding that the delay had been condoned by accepting the Change Report. This order was not challenged by the Birajdar family and had attained finality. The devotees (Birajdar family) had a grievance with the very registration of the Trust, which had been dismissed earlier, and as mere devotees, they could not challenge the succession to the post of Vahiwatdar. If the Trust is not taking proper care of the Temple, separate statutory remedies are available under the Act, and the devotees should pursue those instead of repeatedly attacking the Change Reports.
The Court clarified that delay in filing a Change Report is not fatal and can be condoned upon showing sufficient cause. This ruling provides much-needed flexibility in the administration of Public Trusts, recognizing the practical realities and challenges faced by Trustees and Administrators. Furthermore, the Court rightly highlighted that mere devotees cannot disrupt the succession process, or the administration of a Trust based on personal grievances or ulterior motives. The statutory remedies available under the Act should be pursued for specific issues, rather than resorting to collateral attacks on the Trust’s administration.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment is a significant pronouncement on the administration of Public Trusts under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Court adopted a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach, emphasizing that technicalities should not be allowed to override substantive justice. Overall, the judgment strikes a balanced approach, upholding the principles of transparency and accountability in the administration of Public Trusts while also ensuring that technical objections do not impede the smooth functioning of such Trusts.
Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.
Click here to read the Judgement.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
