Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to a suit filed under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, where no relief is claimed personally against the State Government or the Registrar of Public Trusts.

Headnote:
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 80 - PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT - NOTICE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - RELIEF AGAINST GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC OFFICER - SUIT UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE ACT - NATURE AND PURPOSE - JUDICIAL INQUIRY - FINALITY OF ENTRIES IN REGISTER - NO PERSONAL INTEREST OR RELIEF-GRANTING AUTHORITY - NO APPLICATION OF SECTION 80.
Fact of the Case:

A suit was filed under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (Act XXX of 1951) to challenge a finding of the Registrar of Public Trusts that a certain Sansthan was a public trust. The State of Madhya Pradesh and the Registrar were joined as defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that no notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was given to the defendants. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that Section 80 of the CPC did not apply to the suit under Section 8 of the Act. The Court observed that Section 80 required a plaintiff to state the cause of action and the relief claimed against the Government or a public officer. However, in the present case, no relief was claimed personally against either the State Government or the Registrar. The suit was not against the Government or a public officer in respect of an act done in their official capacity. The Court further noted that the Registrar's inquiry under Section 5 of the Act was a judicial proceeding and the entries made in the register were final and conclusive, subject to any change recorded under the Act or rules made thereunder. The Court concluded that the Registrar and the State Government had no personal interest in the trust property or the trust and were not competent to grant relief to an aggrieved person. Therefore, Section 80 of the CPC was not attracted.
Issues: Whether Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to a suit filed under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, where no relief is claimed personally against the State Government or the Registrar of Public Trusts.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 80 of the CPC did not apply to the suit under Section 8 of the Act because: * Section 80 requires a plaintiff to state the cause of action and the relief claimed against the Government or a public officer, but in this case, no relief was claimed personally against either the State Government or the Registrar. * The suit was not against the Government or a public officer in respect of an act done in their official capacity. * The Registrar's inquiry under Section 5 of the Act was a judicial proceeding and the entries made in the register were final and conclusive, subject to any change recorded under the Act or rules made thereunder. * The Registrar and the State Government had no personal interest in the trust property or the trust and were not competent to grant relief to an aggrieved person.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court, and remanded the case back for disposal in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT - Tambe, C.J.

1. The question that falls for consideration is whether absence of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code to the State Government as well as to the Registrar of Public Trusts is fatal to the suit instituted under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (Act XXX of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act)? The question arises thus.

2. There is one Deosthan at Mangrul-Dastagir in Amravati district, which is known as Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan. The appellant Chandrkant filed an application before the Registrar of Public Trusts, purporting to be one under Section 4 of the Act, wherein he claimed that the aforesaid Sansthan was not a public trust, but was a private trust belonging to his family and o£ which he was the trustee. He therefore prayed that the trust be not registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Act.

3. The Registrar by his order dated 1-3-1955 held that the trust was a public trust and it appears that an entry to that effect, in consequence of the aforesaid finding of the Registrar, was made in the register under Section 7 of the Act and was publish ed on the notice board on 8th October, 1955. On 3rd December, 1955 appellant Chandrakant instituted a civil suit (C. Si No. 4-A of 1955) in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Amravati, under Section 8 of the Act to have the aforesaid finding of the Registrar set aside. To this suit, appellant Chandrakant had joined the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Registrar of Public Trusts as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. On behalf of the defendants i. e. the State Government and Registrar, it was, inter alia, contended that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as notice, as required by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, was not given. In the alternative it had also been pleaded that the suit was barred by time. The learned trial judge framed two priliminary issues on the aforesaid two contentions raised by the defendants. He held that the suit was not maintainable as no notice under Section 80 had been given. He also held that the suit was barred by time, Against this decision of the trial Court an appeal was preferred to this Court (First Appeal No. 79 of 1957) and the learned Single Judge held that the suit was not barred by time. He however held that the suit was bad as no notice was given under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Against this decision of the Single Judge, appellant Chandrakant preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent and the Division Bench having regard to the two decisions of a Single Judge of this Court and certain observations in the decision of a Division Bench, which support the respondents, bag referred this case to a larger Bench. It appears from the Order of the Division Bench that it is of the view that in the circumstances of the case notice under Section 80 is not necessary. In the referring order, however, the question arising for our consideration has not been framed. We have, therefore, framed the aforesaid question which falls for our consideration. It may be stated that counsel of the parties agree that this is the question which we have to consider.

4. Mr. Pultamkar, learned counsel for the appellant, Contends that the suit was Instituted under a special Act, viz, the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act and therefore the Civil Procedure Code had no application at all to this suit. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on Section 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the alternative Mr. Pultamkar contends that even assuming that the Civil Procedure Code has application, Section 80 is not attracted to the facts of the case. It is his argument that no notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code is required to be given as no relief is claimed either against the State Government or the public Officer. The suit instituted is one under Section 8 of the Act and no relief personally has been claimed either against the State Government of Madhya Pradesh or t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document