The Deputy Charity Commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions relating to the existence of a trust, whether such trust is a public trust, and whether any property is the property of such trust. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to decide the same questions in a civil suit is excluded.

Headnote:
PUBLIC TRUST - BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1950 - SECTIONS 19, 79, 80 - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS - EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF CHARITY COMMISSIONER TO DECIDE QUESTIONS RELATING TO EXISTENCE OF TRUST, WHETHER TRUST IS PUBLIC TRUST, AND WHETHER PROPERTY IS PROPERTY OF SUCH TRUST - CIVIL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE SAME QUESTIONS IN CIVIL SUIT - SECTION 50 - SUITS RELATING TO PUBLIC TRUSTS - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT NOT EXCLUDED IN RESPECT OF SUITS MENTIONED THEREIN - RULE 7 - ENQUIRY TO BE HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR TRIAL OF SUITS UNDER PRESIDENCY SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1882 - RULE 11 - EVIDENCE TO BE TAKEN DOWN IN WRITING - SECTION 20 - FINDINGS AND REASONS TO BE RECORDED - FULL RECORD OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS AVAILABLE TO APPELLATE COURT - PUBLICITY TO BE GIVEN TO DECISION OF DEPUTY OR ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER - ORDER OF DEPUTY CHARITY COMMISSIONER HOLDING THAT CIVIL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DECIDE QUESTION WHETHER AMOUNT IN HANDS OF TRUSTEES IS PROPERTY OF PUBLIC TRUST AND APPLICATION BEFORE HIM CANNOT BE STAYED IS CORRECT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a civil suit for a declaration that she was the real owner of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- lying in deposit with respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and no one else had any right, title, and interest in that amount. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 applied to the Deputy Charity Commissioner for registration of a trust alleged to have been created by one Bai Parsan in respect of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- and a further sum of Rs. 4,000/-. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the petitioner and Shantilal Maganlal from proceeding with the suit and another suit filed by Amratlal Lailubhai for a declaration that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were bound to spend the amount of Rs. 20,000/- lying in deposit with them for certain charitable purposes.
Finding of the Court:

The Deputy Charity Commissioner held that he had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the application filed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner applied to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for a stay of the proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner pending disposal of the suit filed by her.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the application filed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4? 2. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the question whether the amount in the hands of the trustees was the property of a public trust?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner to decide questions set out in Section 19, including the existence of a trust, whether such trust is a public trust, and whether any property is the property of such trust. 2. The jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to decide questions which have been either dealt with by an officer or authority under the Act or which are to be decided or dealt with by him is excluded, save as expressly provided by the Act. 3. Section 50 of the Act enables suits relating to public trusts to be filed for certain reliefs by the Charity Commissioner or by two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner. This provision does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits which fall within the description of suits mentioned therein. 4. Rule 7 of the Bombay Public Trusts Rules, 1951, which requires an enquiry to be held in accordance with the procedure prescribed for trial of suits under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, does not deprive persons of their title to property on an enquiry of that nature, as full record of evidence and the reasons for the decision of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner would be available to the appellate court.
Final Decision: The rule issued by the High Court was discharged with costs.

Judgment -

1. The petitioner Taraben Baldevdas Parikh filed civil suit No. 63 of 1953 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division at Kapadvanj, District Kaira, against Amratlal Lallubhai Ramlal Jagmohandas, Jayantilal Nanalal, Manilal Bapalal, Mohanlal Bapulal and Shantilal Maganlal for a declaration that she was the real owner of an amount of Rs. 20,000/-which were lying in deposit with Ramanlal Jagmohandas and Jayantilal Nanalal (whom I will hereafter refer to as respondents Nos. 3 and 4) and no one else had any right, title and interest in that amount. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were served with the summons of the suit. Thereafter they submitted an application under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Greater Bombay Region, for registration of trust alleged to have been created by one Bai Parsan in respect of the amount of Rs. 20,000/-lying in deposit with them, and also in respect of a further sum of Rs. 4,000/-. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 also applied to the Deputy Charity Commissioner to make enquiries and to determine whether the said "amounts constituted a trust" and whether the trust was a public trust within the meaning of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the petitioner and Shantilal Maganlal, who is the executor of Amratlal Lallubhai -- the latter having died since the institution of the suit -- from proceeding with suit No. 63 of 1933 and another suit No. 32 of 1952, which had been filed by Amratlal Lailubhai for a declaration that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were bound to spend the amount of Rs. 20,000/-lying in deposit with them for certain charitable purposes and for a direction accordingly.

2. The petitioner by her written statement to the application filed before the Deputy Charity Com-missioner contended, inter alia, that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the question relating to the existence of a trust was involved in the two suits and also in the application. The petitioner also contended that in the circumstances the provisions of Section 56B and Section 26 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act applied.

3. The contention raised by the petitioner as to the jurisdiction was heard as a preliminary issue by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. He negatived the contention of the petitioner and hold that he had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the application. It appears that in suit No. 63 of 1953 a preliminary issue was raised, whether the suit was barred under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The petitioner thereafter applied for stay of the proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner under Section 10 of the C. P. C. .contending that as the same issue fell to be determined in two different proceedings before two different tribunals simultaneously, and the suit instituted by the petitioner being prior to institution of the application under Section 19, the proceedings before him were liable to be stayed. The Deputy Charity Commissioner held by his order dated the 8th November 1954 that he had exclusive jurisdiction to try the issue whether the property in dispute was public trust property, and the jurisdiction to decide that question was barred by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and therefore the question of staying the application under Section 10 of the Civil P. C. did not arise. The Deputy Charity Commissioner accordingly dismissed the application.

4. Against the order dismissing the application passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, an appeal was preferred to the Charity Commissioner, but the same was dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable. The petitioner has applied to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution and she has requested that the proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner filed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act be stayed pending disposal of the suit filed by her in the Kapadvanj Court (Suit N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis