Sub-section (4) of section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, places a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A on par with a scheme settled under a decree of a Court under section 50, and the District Court has the jurisdiction to execute the executable part of such a scheme.

Headnote:
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Section 50A - Scheme Settlement by Charity Commissioner - Execution of Executable Part - District Court's Jurisdiction:
Fact of the Case:

The Charity Commissioner settled a scheme under section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, for the management of a public trust. The scheme included a clause directing the trustees to hand over the trust's property to the Board of Trustees. The trustees failed to comply, and a member of the Board filed an execution petition in the District Court seeking possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:

The District Court held that it had the jurisdiction to execute the executable part of the scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A, as sub-section (4) of section 50A placed such a scheme on par with a scheme settled under a decree of a Court under section 50.
Issues: Whether the District Court had the jurisdiction to execute the executable part of a scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the District Court had the jurisdiction to execute the executable part of the scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A. The Court reasoned that sub-section (4) of section 50A placed such a scheme on par with a scheme settled under a decree of a Court under section 50, and that the Legislature intended to treat the two types of schemes on an equal footing in all respects.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the revision application filed by the trustees, upholding the District Court's decision that it had the jurisdiction to execute the executable part of the scheme settled by the Charity Commissioner.

JUDGMENT - Ginwala A.A., J.: - In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties in this case it is necessary to briefly state the facts which led to the present revision application.

2. Non-applicant Nos. 1 to 5 had applied to the Charity Commissioner

under section 50 A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to settle a scheme in respect of a public trust registered under that Act in the name of Kagzipura Panch Bangla, Akola of which applicant No. 1 was said to be a managing trustee and applicant No.2 as a trustee. A draft scheme was annexed to this application. The Deputy Charity Commissioner by his order passed on 31st August, 1974 settled the scheme in terms of the scheme annexed to this order. The present applicants moved the District Court under section 72 of the Act to set aside the decision of the Deputy Charity Commissioner. This application was heard by the Joint Judge who, by his order passed on 29th November, 1976, instead of setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, as prayed for by the applicants, modified the scheme by altering certain clauses in it and inserting one more clause as Clause 31, which is in the following terms:

“31. The present trustees, i.e. Abdul Aziz Sk. Ismail and Sk. Kasam Sk. Ismail shall hand over the charge of the trust affairs and account books and other material documents, the trust property, moveable as well as immoveable, to the Board of Trustees named in rule 3 on or before 10-12-1976.”

It may be mentioned here that under the scheme finalised by the Joint Judge the present two applicants, non-applicant No. 1 and two other persons are appointed as the first trustees under the said scheme by virtue of Clause 3 thereof. Thus the effect of Clause 31 of the scheme as settled by the Joint Judge would be that the present two applicants who are also two of the members of the Board of Trustees had to hand over the charge of the trust with the account books and moveable and immoveable property etc. to the said Board of Trustees on or before 10th December 1976. The applicants failed to do so and hence Mohammad Usman, who is one of the members of the Board of Trustees, filed an application in the District Court on 28th December, 1976 for obtaining possession of the moveable and immoveable property of the trust along with account books and other documents from the present two applicants as directed under Clause 31 of the Scheme. This application is in the form of execution petition and it has been registered as Execution Case No.1 of 1976. The applicants appeared in the said execution proceedings and objected to the District Court entertaining the execution proceeding. According to them the authority competent to execute the scheme is the Charity Commissioner and hence the execution application filed in the Court was not tenable. The learned Joint Judge heard the parties on the question of tenability of the execution proceeding and by his order passed on. 25th January, 1977, he held that it was competent for the District Court to entertain the application for execution of that part of the scheme which was executable. According to him, the part of the scheme which was sought to be executed, viz., Clause 31, was executable as a decree by virtue of sub-section(4) of section-50A of the Act and it was in this view that he held that the execution proceeding was tenable in the Court. In this view of the matter the learned Joint Judge directed the execution to proceed and a warrant to be issued against the present applicants for possession of the moveable and immovable property of the trust. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed.

3. The point, therefore, which arises for consideration in this revision

application is whether the District Court is competent to execute the executable part of a scherpe which has been settled by the Charity Commissioner under section 50A of the Act.

4. In order to decide th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document