Read Full Judgment: Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v. Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and others
The case pertains to the acceptance of Change Reports related to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, a Public Trust. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for fresh consideration by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Solapur Region, Solapur. However, the orders of remand were not acted upon due to the pendency of the appeals. As per the High Court’s directions, the individuals already administering the Trust continued to do so.
The background of the case reveals that Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, was registered as a Public Trust in 1952 for maintaining Shri Mallikarjun Temple at Shelgi, North Solapur Taluka. Succession of managership and trusteeship was outlined in the registration application. Following the demise of the initial Vahiwatdar, Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil assumed the role despite not being the eldest male member of the family, as per the outlined succession plan.
The statutory framework under the Act of 1950 mandates the submission of Change Reports to update Trust records. Failure to do so invites penal consequences but does not automatically invalidate the assumption of office by a Vahiwatdar. The Act provides remedies for objectors to address any grievances regarding changes in the Trust. The High Court’s focus on the delay in submitting the first Change Report was criticized as hypertechnical, as the delay did not impact the changes in the Trust itself.
The Court emphasized that delay in filing a Change Report is curable, and the Act allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The objections raised by the Birajdar family, who were not members of the founder’s family, were viewed as having no legitimate basis, especially considering their earlier dismissal of the revision challenging the Trust’s registration.
Ultimately, the Court overturned the High Court’s decision, confirming the acceptance of Change Reports and allowing the individuals currently administering the Trust to continue. The judgment underscores the importance of a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach in dealing with such matters, ensuring that technicalities do not overshadow substantive issues.
