Lala Bishambarnath Agarwal Foundation Trust vs. Govt Of Nct Of Delhi

$~J-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: 29.04.2026
+ CS(OS) 472/2025 & I.A. 17138/2025
LALA BISHAMBARNATH AGARWAL
FOUNDATION TRUST .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Aayush Agarwal, Mr. Sidhant
Jaiswal and Mr. Amit Agarwal,
Advs.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Defendant
Through: Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
1. The present suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff/Trust seeking
permission of this Court to sell an immovable property bearing Office Nos.
71-A, 72-A, 73-A & 74-A, 7th Floor, A Wing, Chandermukhi Estates
Private Limited, Aggarwal Trade Centre, Plot No. 62, Sector 11, CBD
Belapur, Taluk & District Thane, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as
the “subject property”).
2. The Plaintiff is a public charitable trust registered under the Indian
Trusts Act, 1882 and the Charitable & Religious Trusts Act, 1920
[hereinafter ‘Act’]. The Plaintiff carries on its activities and has its
principal place of administration at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
3. The subject property forms part of the assets of the Plaintiff/Trust. It
is stated that the property is in a condition of disrepair, requires substantial
expenditure for maintenance, and is not capable of being leased out. It is,
therefore, asserted that the property no longer serves the objects of the
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 1 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

Trust.
4. The Plaintiff has obtained a valuation report assessing the value of
the subject property at Rs.3,05,62,500/-. An interested purchaser has
offered a sum of Rs.3,54,89,000/-, which is stated to be approximately 20%
above the assessed market value.
5. In these circumstances, the present petition has been filed seeking
directions of this Court for sale of the subject property, invoking Section 7
of the Act.
6. Since the subject property is situated in Thane, Maharashtra, a
preliminary issue which arises for consideration is as to whether this Court
at Delhi possesses territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
proceedings. Accordingly, arguments were heard confined to the said issue.
7. Mr. Aayush Agarwal, learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that
the present proceedings are maintainable under Section 7 of the Act, which
empowers a trustee to approach the Court for "opinion, advice or direction"
regarding the management or administration of trust property. As per the
Act, such a petition is properly filed before the Court within whose local
limits a "substantial part of the subject-matter of the trust is situated".
8. Relying on the precedent in Vishwa Nath & Santosh Bakshi
Charitable Educational Trust (Regd.) & Anr., CS(OS) 119/2019, Mr.
Agarwal highlights four key procedural points namely; (i) a petition under
Section 7 of the Act is a valid mechanism for seeking judicial permission to
sell immovable trust property; (ii) These proceedings are to be treated as
petitions and not as regular civil suits; (iii) no court fee is payable on such
petitions; (iv) the Court has the flexibility to devise its own procedure
based on the specific facts of the case.
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 2 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

9. Mr. Agarwal further argues that there is a distinction between "trust
property" and "subject-matter of the trust". He contends that since the
Plaintiff/Trust is administered from New Delhi, where its principal office
and decision making authority are located, the "subject-matter" (the
administration itself) falls within this Court's territorial jurisdiction,
regardless of where the physical asset is situated.
10. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the defendant states that he
has no objection per se . However, he states that the since the prayer made
in the suit is for the sale of the subject property located in Thane,
Maharashtra, therefore the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court
to grant permission for sale of subject property assumes relevance.
11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, a short question
which arises for the consideration of this court at this stage is whether this
court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit seeking
grant of permission for sale of subject property.
12. Since the court acts in the capacity of parens patriae in respect of the
trust created or existing for public purpose of a charitable or religious
1
nature , therefore, trustee(s) of such trusts have been empowered by sub-
section (1) of section 7 of the Act to approach the court for "opinion, advice
or direction" regarding the management or administration of “trust
property” . The said provision also provides an answer to the question as to
which court would have the jurisdiction to entertain such a petition.
13. At this juncture, it is imperative to advert to Section 7 of the Act,
which empowers a trustee to approach the Court for "opinion, advice or
direction" regarding the management or administration of trust property .
1
Executive Officer, Arthanareswarar Temple v. R. Sathyamoorthy & Ors. : (1999) 3 SCC 115
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 3 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

Section 7 reads thus:
“7. Powers of trustee to apply for directions. — (1) Save as
hereinafter provided in this Act, any trustee of an express or
constructive trust created or existing for public purpose of a
charitable or religious nature may apply by petition to the Court ,
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any substantial part
of the subject-matter of the trust is situate, for the opinion,
advice or direction of the Court on any question affecting the
management or administration of the trust property , and the
Court shall give its opinion, advice or direction, as the case may
be, thereon:
Provided that the Court shall not be bound to give such opinion,
advice or direction on any question which it considers to be a
question not proper for summary disposal.
(2) The Court on a petition under sub-section (1), may either give
its opinion, advice or direction thereon forthwith, or fix a date for
the hearing of the petition, and may direct a copy thereof, together
with notice of the date so fixed, to be served on such of the person
interested in the trust, or to be published for information in such
manner, as it thinks fit.
(3) On any date fixed under sub-section (2) or on any subsequent
date to which the hearing may be adjourned, the Court, before
giving any opinion, advice or direction, shall afford a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to all persons appearing in connection
with the petition.
(4) A trustee stating in good faith the facts of any matter relating
to the trust in a petition under sub-section (1), and acting upon the
opinion, advice or direction of the Court given thereon, shall be
deemed, as far as his own responsibility is concerned, to have
discharged his duty as such trustee in the matter in respect of
which the petition was made.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. Sub-section (1) of section 7 provides that the court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction any substantial part of the “subject-matter of
the trust” is situate would have competence to entertain a petition on behalf
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 4 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

of the trustee seeking opinion, advice or direction. Incidentally, the said
provision also uses the expression “trust property” , but it does not say that
the court within whose local limits the “trust property” is situated will
have the jurisdiction.
15. It is also a trite law that as a general rule when two different
expressions are used by the same statute or the same provision, one has to
2
construe such different expressions as carrying different meanings. An
examination of Section 7(1) of the Act denotes that the expression
“subject-matter of the trust” has been used in contradistinction to the
expression “trust property”. The term “trust property” refers to the
tangible assets of the trust, such as the immoveable property whereas the
“subject-matter of trust” encompasses a broader administrative and
management framework of the charitable trust.
16. This court finds that the subject matter of the present petition is the
administrative decision making process of the trustees regarding the
alienation of a trust property, the bona fide need for which has to be tested
by the court, besides ensuring that such property fetches the maximum
price in the market, if at all there is necessity to sell the same.
17. A perusal of the Trust Deed (Document P-2) shows that the
Plaintiff/Trust's principal office of the trust is situated at New Delhi,
therefore, all decisions related to administration and management will have
to be taken in New Delhi. The decision to sell or retain property is an
internal matter of trust management, making the situs of administration the
most relevant factor for determining where a substantial part of the trust's
2
Kailash Nath Agarwal & Ors. v. Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. & Anr. :
(2003) 4 SCC 305
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 5 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

subject matter is situated. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion
that the ‘ substantial part of the subject-matter of the trust’ is situated
within this Court's territorial limits. Furthermore, as the court acts in the
capacity of parens patriae , it is essential that supervisory jurisdiction is
exercised by the court where the trust functions and decisions qua the
management or administration of its property are taken. T his view also
aligns with the doctrine of forum conveniens , as the court at a place where
the trust functions is most convenient for the trustees to discharge their
statutory obligation of obtaining an opinion, advice or direction regarding
the management or administration of “trust property” , as well as for the
beneficiaries to have a trust properly administered. Consequently, the
physical location of the subject property in Maharashtra does not denude
this court of its supervisory jurisdiction to grant requested permission qua
the sale of same.
18. If jurisdiction were to be determined solely by the physical location
of the "trust property" , it would lead to practical difficulties or even
conflicting decisions where a single trust with assets in multiple states
would be approaching different courts for opinion, advice or direction
regarding the management or administration of “trust property” .
19. Reference in this regard may be had to the decision of High Court of
Bombay in Administrator of Shringeri Math v. Charity Commissioner,
Bombay, 1962 SCC OnLine Bom 84 , wherein the court was dealing with
an analogous situation. In that matter, the trust property was located in
Nasik, Maharashtra. The primary object of the Nasik institution was the
maintenance and upkeep of certain 'Samadhis' in Nasik. Despite these
physical assets being in Maharashtra, the site was not used for public
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 6 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

worship as a matter of right or for imparting religious instruction. The
primary and main institution was situated in Mysore territory. While
relying upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v.
Sm. Charusila Dasi, [1959] AIR SC 1002 and State of Bihar v.
Bhabapritananda , [1959] AIR SC 1073 , it was held by the Bombay High
Court that where the principal trust is situated outside Bombay, the mere
existence of a portion of its properties within Bombay would not attract the
applicability of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the authorities in
Mysore, rather than Bombay should retain jurisdiction despite the physical
asset of the trust being situated in Bombay.
20. It was further observed that where the main institution is located in
one State, the statutory authorities of that State are competent to supervise
not only the principal institution but also its subordinate establishments
situated elsewhere.
21. The Court also held that to avoid inconsistencies and to rationalise
the management of public trusts with properties spread across multiple
States, the jurisdiction must vest with the authorities of the State where the
principal institution is situated, as this alone would facilitate and simplify
effective administration.
22. The court also emphasized that the ‘beneficiaries’ right is to have the
trust properly administered, and such right is ordinarily enforceable at the
place where the trust is situated or administered. It was further held that the
existence of trust properties outside the territorial limits does not denude
the jurisdiction of the Court exercising control over the trust.The relevant
portion of Shringeri Math (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference:
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 7 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

“2. It appears that the then Shankaracharya requested the
Mysore Government in 1953 to take charge of the ‘Math’ at
Shringeri and all its properties because of his ill-health. In
pursuance to that request, the Mysore Government took over all
the properties of the ‘Math’ by a notification of January 12,
1953, under its management under s. 25(iii) of the Mysore
Religious and Charitable Regulation of 1927 and at the same
time appointed one N. Shesu Iyer to be the manager of the
institution. After the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, came into
force, for two years no application was made for registration of
the Nasik institution as in a previous enquiry under the Bombay
Public Trusts Registration Act of 1935 these properties were
held to be the private properties of Shri Shankaracharya. Some
members of the public at Nasik made a grievance about the
same and, therefore, an enquiry was started by the Charity
Commissioner, Poona Region and it was numbered as
Application No. 99 of 1954. At this enquiry though a public
notice was issued, no one appeared and offered evidence. Only
the officer in management of the Shringeri Math gave evidence.
The Assistant Charity Commissioner declared the Nasik
properties to be public trust and ordered accordingly. It seems
that simultaneously an enquiry was commenced by the Charity
Commissioner, Belgaum, in respect of some properties which
fell within his jurisdiction. These were also held to be public
trust properties and an order was made accordingly. Being
aggrieved by both these orders, the officer made an appeal to
the Charity Commissioner, which was heard by the Deputy
Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad, with appellate powers,
sitting at Bombay. He confirmed the findings made by the
Assistant Charity Commissioners. An application was then
made under s. 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, to the
District Judge at Nasik for setting aside the orders made by the
Deputy Charity Commissioner and the Assistant Charity
Commissioners. He also failed in the District Court and that is
why he comes here in appeal. Mr. Amin has raised three
contentions before us. He argues that the properties at Nasik,
which are loosely called a ‘math’, is not a public trust and,
therefore, is not within the Act; secondly, in view of the
decisions of the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 8 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

Registration Act No. XXV of 1935, the question is barred by the
doctrine of res judicata and, therefore, the decision under
appeal is erroneous; and, thirdly, in any case, it being property
appurtenant to the main Math at Shringeri, the Bombay Public
Trusts Act, 1950, will not apply and the Charity Commissioners
in Bombay will have no jurisdiction to deal with the affairs of
this institution. An attempt was made to contend relying on the
decision in Chhotabhai v. Jnan Chandra Basak [(1935) L.R. 62
I.A. 146, S.C.37 Bom. L.R. 567.] , that the Shringeri Math itself
is a private institution and the properties appurtenant to the
Shringeri Math must also be regarded as private properties.
This point was never taken at any stage in this enquiry and the
only evidence that was offered was in respect of Nasik
properties. It would, therefore, be hardly fair to us to give any
decision on the question as to whether Shringeri Math itself is a
public or private trust. In view of our decision on the third point
it is really not necessary for us to determine whether or not
Shringeri Math is the private property of Shri Shankaracharya.
For the purposes of this enquiry it may be assumed that it is a
public trust even without deciding it. “We will consider the
second and the third contentions of Amin first.
xxx xxx xxx
5. The third question is whether the institution at Nasik is liable
to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The
preamble to the Act says that it is an Act to regulate and to
make better provisions for the administration of public religious
and charitable trusts in the State of Bombay. (The italics are
ours). From the nature of the power exercisable by the
Legislature it is clear that the Act can only apply to public
trusts situated in the State of Bombay and not elsewhere. This
must mean necessarily that substantial portion of the trust
properties must be situated in the State of Bombay and the
purpose of the trust must indicate that it is intended for the
benefit of the inhabitants of the Bombay State. By s. 18 a duty
is cast on the trustees of the public trust to make an application
for the registration of the public trust which must again
necessarily mean that the trustees are residents within the
territory of the State or at least, from the nature of the trust must
be deemed to be residents in the Bombay State. Section 22
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 9 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

requires that any change in any of the matters required to be
entered in the Register, must be communicated by the trustees
or trustee to the Charity Commissioner. Section 66 of the Act
creates offences and provides for penalties and says that
whoever contravenes any provision of any of the sections
mentioned in the first column of the table shown therein shall,
on conviction, for each such offence be punished with fine which
may extend to the amount mentioned in that behalf in the third
column of that table. These provisions indicate that the control
on the trustees is “in personam”. It would therefore, mean that
in order that the trustees should be amenable to the jurisdiction
of the various Charity Commissioners in the State, they must
also be subject to their process which can be effectively
enforced against them and this could effectively be done only if
the trust is substantially situated within the State of Bombay in
which case alone it can be said that the trustees would be
amenable to the process of either the Charity Commissioner or
of the Court within the State of Bombay. The scheme of the Act
suggests that only such trusts were intended to be governed by
the Act.
6. In this connection we may refer with advantage to two
decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Sm.
Charusila Dasi [[1959] A.I.R. S.C. 1002.] and State of
Bihar v. Bhabapritananda [[1959] A.I.R. S.C. 1073.] . In both
these cases some of the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious
Trusts Act, 1950, were challenged as being ultra vires the
powers of the Legislature. In the first case the trust was created
under a trust deed by one Charusila Dasi for the worship of an
idol and it was contended that it was a public trust and that the
Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, applied to it. The
properties which were the subject-matter of the trust consisted
among others of some properties in Calcutta out of Bihar
State. A contention was taken before the Supreme Court that
inasmuch as the Bihar Act would extend in the-governance on
Calcutta property also, the Act had extra territorial application
and was, therefore, invalid. In repelling that argument their
Lordships said (p. 1010):
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 10 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 11 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 12 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23

(emphasis supplied)
23. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the Plaintiff Trust
is (i) administered from New Delhi; (ii) its principal place of business and
decision making is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court; and (iii)
the relief sought pertains to the administration of the trust, namely,
permission to sell an asset of the trust. The transaction of sale of the
subject property belonging to the charitable trust is not a stand-alone act
concerning immovable property, but is intrinsically connected with the
administration and management of the trust. The decision whether to retain
or alienate a trust asset is thus, a matter squarely falling within the domain
of trust administration.
24. Therefore, the “subject-matter of the trust” in the present
proceedings cannot be narrowly construed as the immovable property
situated in Thane, Maharashtra, but must be understood as encompassing
the administration of the trust itself, which is located within territorial
jurisdiction of Delhi, therefore, sufficient territorial nexus exists to confer
jurisdiction on this court under Section 7 of the Act.
25. In view of the above, this court holds that it has the requisite
territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit,
notwithstanding the fact that the subject property is situated in Thane,
Maharashtra.
26. List for further proceedings on 25.05.2026.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
APRIL 29, 2026/ aj
CS(OS) 472/2025 Page 13 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:02.05.2026
17:16:23