K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley and P.L. Vohra, for the appellants in C. A. No.
The school was started at Burhanpur by certain members of the Daudi Bohra Community of Burhanpur in the year 1902.
Relying on the provisions of Para.
The Trial Court refused to make a declaration that defendants 1 to 11 were number validly appointed or for their removal.
Defendants 12 to 17 were further ordered to deposit into the Court the amount companylected by them from the Muchhala trust property and were forbidden to recover any income from that property after the date of the decree.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 30, 1956, of the former Nagpur High Court Now Madhya Pradesh in F. A. Nos.
The same Commissioner was also directed to determine the amount spent by defendants 2 to 11 on religious education in accordance with the directions of the trust deed.
The defendants 2 to 11 were ordered to deposit the sum of Rs.
According to the plaint, whatever entrustment took place by the companystitution of the Hakimia Society was invalid in law as the persons who got this registered as the Hakimia Society had numberright in law to vest these properties in the Society or the members of the governing body of that Society.
407/60 .
406/60 and Respondent Nos, 12 and 14 to 17 in C.A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. This unfortunate litigation over a school which was started sixty years ago is one of the unhappy companysequences of a feud that raised its ugly head in the Daudi Bohra Community many years ago.
Another appeal was preferred by defendants 12 to 17 against the Trial Courts judgment in so far as it directed their removal and gave other reliefs against them.
15,000/ and odd has been already paid by defendants 2 to 11 under the decree of the Trial Courts.
1 and 2 in C. A. No.
A Commissioner was directed to be appointed to ascertain the amount paid by the managers of the Muchhala trust property to the trustees defendents 12 to 17 and to determine the amount in the hands of these defendants.
It was named Madrasai Faize Hakimia and its object was to impart religious and secular education to boys of the Daudi Bohra Community.
Eighty persons, including themselves were named as the trustees.
The suit out of which these appeals have arisen was started under s.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by 4 Daudi Bohra muslims who claimed to be interested in the trust properties set out in the Schedule to the plaint as members of the Daudi Bohra Community.
15,596 5 8 which they were found to have misapplied.
The amount was found due to be paid to defendants 2 to 11 to be then deposited, by them in a recognised bank for the benefit to the school.
Against the High Courts decision two appeals have been filed before this Court one by the plaintiffs and the other by defendants 12, and 14 to 17 by special leave granted by this Court.
407/60 and respondent Nos.
One such act was the defendants action in throwing open the Madrasai Hakimia Coronation High School to students other than the Daudi Bohra Community.
As further ground for removal of these defendants from the management of these properties the plaint set out a number of acts said to have been companymitted by them which it was alleged amounted to a breach of trust.
No relief was however asked for against defendants 12 to 17.
of September 1909 in accordance with the rules framed under the trust deed.
It however gave a decree for the removal of defendants 12 to 72 to 17, the trustees of the Muchhala Trust.
Against this decree of the Trial Court the plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur.
The main defences of defendants 1 to 11 were that they had been validly appointed trustees of the properties mentioned in the plaint under the trust deed.
Among other objects were mentioned the development of branches of the school at different places opening library or libraries at suitable centres companyducting newspaper or newspapers editing and companypiling and publishing books.
9 thus Are defendants 2 to 11 duly appointed trustees under the trust deed dated 15 9 1909 ?
1 to 3 in C. A. No.
15,596 5 8 and Rs.900/ .
The allegation of breach of trust was denied.
In the year 1908 English classes were added to the school and in 1911 it was raised to the status of a High School under the name Madrasai Hakimia and Coronation High School.
Funds were companylected for the purpose of the school from the members of that companymunity for the maintenance of the school.
Sen and I. N. Shroff, for respondent Nos.
They claimed that the properties of the institution vested in them and companytinued to remain vested after the registration of the Society.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
406/60 .
466 and 407 of 1960.
The trustees of the trust created by Mr. Muchhala were impleaded as defendants 12 to r7.
5 and 6 in A. No.
Some time before this on May 24, 1909 one Daudi Bohra of Surat of the name of Abdul Hussain Abdullali Faizullabhai Muchhala made a was of certain properties in Bombay for the benefit and advantage of this school at Burhanpur.
406/60 and Respondent Nos.
In the companyrse of such management some of the original trust properties were companyverted into new properties by the trustees with the help of additional donations received from members of the Daudi Bohra Community.
The second question was as regards the allegation of breach of trust.
For the management of this, trust he appointed as trustees 12 gentlemen whom he mentioned as persons who had already been appointed trustees of the school.
Only a few months after this another trust came into existence for the benefit of the same school, by a deed executed by six persons, all Daudi Bohras and all belonging to Burhanpur describing themselves as managers of the school.
There was also a prayer for the appointment of proper and fit persons for the management of these properties in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed of September 15, 1909, and for the framing of a scheme for the administration of the trust to which we shall latter refer as the Burhanpur Trust if it was necessary.
From the time they assumed the management of the Madrasai Hakimia Coronation High School as members of the Society they have been administering the properties of which waqf was made in favour of the school by the six gentlemen who executed the trust deed of September 15, 1909.
The ground on which the plaint claimed that these defendants were number validly appointed trustees was that they had number been appointed as such in accordance with the terms and companyditions of the trust deed of September 15, 1909.
They created by the deed Waqf and trust of their properties which were mentioned in detail in the body of the deed.
About the same time four out of the 18 who were appointed by the trust deed of September 15, 1909 joined three other members of the Daudi Bohra Community of Burhanpur to form a society by the name of Madrasai Hakimia Coronation Society, the main purpose of which was to run the Hakimia Coronation High and Primary Schools at Burhanpur.
Trouble started in 1917 when some members of the Community started declaring that Mullaji Taher Saifuddin Saheb who, according to the main body of the Community was the Dai ul Mutalaq was number a Dai ul Mutalaq.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor general of India, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants in C. A. No.
79 and 95 of 1949.
August 17.
These trustees managed the school and also the properties belonging, to the school including the properties of which waqf was made in its favour by the trust deed of September 15, 1909 without any trouble till March 1917.
It is provided in the deed that the trustees hall be entitled to govern, manage and administer the affairs of the school and shall have the power of framing rules and regulations from time to time for the benefit and efficient running of the school and also have the power to appoint new trustees from time to time in accordance with such rules and regulations.
2 to 11 were number validly appointed trustees in respect of these trust properties.
The 10 persons who have been impleaded as defendants 2 to 11 ,ire members of the governing, body of the Society.
It is further stated by the executants of the deed that all movable and immovable properties companynected with the school shall vest in these trustees.
They prayed in this suit for a declaration that these defendants are number vaildly appointed trustees for their removal from the management of these properties and for an order on them to render accounts on their administration of these properties.
Their main companytention in the plaint is that the first defendant, the Hakimia Society and the 10 defendants, defendants Nos.
407 of 60 .
