The necessity of joining all parties with legitimate claims in property suits is crucial, as improper representation can affect the validity of ownership determinations.

JUDGMENT :

R. DEVDAS, J.

Delay of 70 days in filing the appeal in RFA No.100080/2025 stands condoned.

2. These two Regular First Appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.69/2013 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal. Therefore, the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the trial court.

4. The plaintiff-Shri Mallikarjun Dev Trust, Bailhongal along with its Trustees filed a suit for recovery of possession of the property bearing R.S.No.116 of Bailhongal Town (corresponding CTS No.128 now CTS Nos.114 to 128) measuring 2 acres 36 guntas; for award of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-; future compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. and also for mesne profits of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defendant-TMC, Bailhongal. Earlier when the suit was dismissed, the Trust filed RFA No.100278/2018. This court by judgment dated 24.04.2024 found that having regard to the provisions contained in Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), more particularly, Sections 18 to 21 of the Act, was of the opinion that an application having been made for registration of the Public Trust and the Charity Commissioner having enquired into the matter and thereafter having registered the Public Trust declaring that the property belongs to the Trust, therefore, it is claimed that the property in question belongs to the Trust.

5. However, this Court also held that Issue No.1 which was earlier framed by the trial Court, whether the plaintiff proves that Plaintiff No.1, Mallikarjun Dev Trust, Bailhongal is the owner of the suit property? was not properly decided. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the trial Court with a specific direction for re-appreciation of the documents placed on record at the hands of the plaintiffs, more particularly Ex.P35 to Ex.P38, in the light of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Case of Sainath Mandir Trust Vs. Vijaya and Others , reported in (2011) 1 SCC 623 , which was reiterated in R.M.Sundaram @ Meenakshisundaram Vs. Sri Kayarohanaswamy and Neelayadhakshi Amman Temple (through its Executive Officer) Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 883. While remanding the matter this Court also noticed that since the defendant has not filed the written statement therefore the trial Court may proceed to re- assess the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs and decide the matter on merits. Pursuant to the remand, the impugned Judgment and Decree has been passed by the trial Court declaring that the plaintiff No.1- Trust is entitled for recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant. The defendant was directed to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff No.1/Trust. Being aggrieved of the impugned Judgment and Decree, Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal has filed RFA No.100080/2025 through its Chief Officer. Even before such appeal could be filed by the Town Municipal Council, Bailhongal appeal in RFA No.100028/2025 is filed by Sri Khatalsab and other 43 appellants along with an application seeking leave of this Court to prosecute the appeal although the appellants were not parties to the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants in RFA No.100028/2025 submitted that the suit schedule property belongs to the Town Municipal Council and the Town Municipal Council executed a Sale Deed dated 22.07.1978 in favour of Sri Bapusab Hasansab Kadabi in respect of the 605 square yards and another Sale Deed dated 15.06.1983 is executed by the President, Town Municipal Council, Bai