Shah Chhotalal Lallubhai & Ors Vs.
Charity Commissioner, Bombay, & Ors  INSC 13 (22 January 1965)
22/01/1965 BACHAWAT, R.S.
RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) DAYAL, RAGHUBAR RAMASWAMI,
CITATION: 1965 AIR 1611 1965 SCR (2) 811
Bombay Public Trusts Act (29 of 1950), ss. 55
and 56- Diversion of accumulation of trust funds-When permitted.
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
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
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
(6) Rs. 50 for providing food to pilgrims at
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
(10) Rs. 200 for Jain Gyan Khata (fund for
(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
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
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)  S. C. R.
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
(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 there from 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)  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
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
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.