Persons interested in a trust, as defined under Section 2(10)(c) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, have locus standi to file a suit for removal of trustees and appointment of new trustees.

Headnote:
TRUSTEESHIP - REMOVAL - MISCONDUCT - JURISDICTION - BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1950 - SECTIONS 2(10)(C), 50, 79, 80 - Locus standi of plaintiffs - Consent of Charity Commissioner - Jurisdiction of Civil Court to decide ownership of Trust property.
Fact of the Case:

A religious trust, Masjid Hadapsar, was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The trustees were accused of misconduct, including misappropriation of funds, unauthorized sale of trust property, and failure to maintain accounts. The plaintiffs, claiming to be persons interested in the trust, obtained the Charity Commissioner's consent and filed a suit for removal of the trustees and appointment of new trustees.
Finding of the Court:

The trial court found that the plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit, that the Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to grant consent, and that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the trust property. The court also found that the trustees had committed misconduct and were unfit to continue as trustees.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit? 2. Whether the Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to grant consent? 3. Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the trust property? 4. Whether the trustees had committed misconduct?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit as they were persons interested in the trust, having the right to perform religious rites and offer prayers in the mosque, as defined under Section 2(10)(c) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 2. The Charity Commissioner had jurisdiction to grant consent as he had conducted an inquiry and found that the allegations of misconduct against the trustees were substantiated. 3. The Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the ownership of the trust property as the Charity Commissioner had already made a finding that the properties belonged to the trust. 4. The trustees had committed misconduct by misappropriating funds, unauthorizedly selling trust property, and failing to maintain accounts.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decree removing the trustees and appointing new trustees was upheld.

JUDGMENT - V.S. KOTWAL, J.:---A religious Masjid located in Hadapsar in Pune District has prominently figured in these proceedings. It has been registered with the Charity Commissioner, Pune Region under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (shortly stated as the "Act"), in the name of 'Masjid Hadapsar, Taluka Haveli, Trust", which event occurred in the year 1952. The said Masjid shall be referred to as the suit "Trust". Initially 8 persons were appointed as trustees and managers to look after the said Mosque. The four appellants herein are amongst group of the said 8 trustees, though unfortunately the remaining four trustees died from time to time. Leaving behind in the field only the present appellants in that capacity and it may be incidently observed at this juncture itself that no attempt was made by them to fill up those vacancies. Thus, the number continued to be four, though it was necessary to be eight. The mode of succession to trusteeship and managership was prescribed by nomination by the jamat. The dominant object of the trust is claimed to be nomination by the jamat. The dominant object of the trust is claimed to be the maintenance and upkeep of the Masjid as also performance of religious rites and offer facilities to the religious-minded people who visit the mosque to offer their prayers. It is clear that the Trust properties consist of a Mosque and a Kabrastan which are located in City Survey No. 530 having corresponding Municipal No. 158 within the limits of Hadapsar and it also includes a building adjacent to the said Mosque which building was formerly used as an education institution, being Urdu School. It is further claimed that in addition to these properties, the Trust possesses and owns two agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 74 and 75 which were initially granted as Inam in ancient time by Badshah Alamgir. It is alleged by the first three respondents herein, who are the original plaintiffs. That several acts of omission and commission amounting to misconduct are attributable to the said four trustees. The break up of those items are five in number.

2. In effect it is contended that though the said two survey numbers were granted to the Trust as Deosthan Inam land the said trustees treated both the lands as of their private ownership and even effected partition into 72 sub-plots and they have been appropriating the income of the said lands to their own personal benefit. The second item pertains to two sale instances effected on March 2, 1968 without obtaining the necessary permission from the Charity Commissioner and appropriating the sale proceeds for their own use. Those relate to sub-plots from the said two survey numbers. The third item mentions that the premises in a building adjoining the Mosque have been unauthorisedly rented out to the tenants for their residences, the income of which is also appropriated by the trustees and the second plank of this allegation is that this would hurt the religious feelings as residence of a family near the Mosque is contrary to the tenets of the Muslim religion. The fourth item relates to non-rendering of the accounts throughout and also misappropriation of large amount. The last item pertains to not appointing of four more trustees to make the total number as eight as so prescribed.

3. The plaintiffs claim that they are persons interested in the Trust since not only they have faith in the religion but they physically visit the Mosque to offer prayers. They, therefore, moved the Charity Commissioner by an Application No. 20 of 1971 alleging misconduct against the said four trustees and their acting diverse to the interests of the Trusts, and asked for the consent to file a suit for the appropriate reliefs as required under the law.

4. That application was contested by the defendants whose contentions were negatived and the Dy. Charity Commissioner by his order dated August 4,1971, granted the necessary consent.

5. On being armed with the said consent and the leg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1982 Supreme(Bom) 103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYV.S. Kotwal, J.Amin Ibrahim others.... Appellants.VersusSayed G. Jamalbhai others.... Respondents.First Appeal No. 645 of 1974, decided on 23-3-1982.Advocates appeared : Mohan Pungliya, for appellants. D.S. Marathe, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Persons interested in a trust, as defined under Section 2(10)(c) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, have locus standi to file a suit for removal of trustees and appointment of new trustees.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
V.S. Kotwal, J.
Amin Ibrahim others.... Appellants.
Versus
Sayed G. Jamalbhai others.... Respondents.
First Appeal No. 645 of 1974, decided on 23-3-1982.
Advocates appeared :
Mohan Pungliya, for appellants.
D.S. Marathe, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.