SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Bom) 585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Arvind V. Savant Vishnu Sahai, JJ.
Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi, since
deceased by his heirs ..... Appellants.
Versus
Leelabai Badrinarayan Kalwar since
deceased by her heirs others .... Respondents.
First Appeal No. 604 of 1979, decided on 5-11-1997.
Advocates appeared :
R.S. Apte, for the heirs of appellant No. 1.
A.A. Kumbhakoni, for the heirs of original respondent No. 1.
K.K. Tated, Assistant Government Pleader, for Charity Commissioner, and State of Maharashtra, respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Headnote:Sections 72 (2) and (4).

       See Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Sections 2 (2), 96 and 100.

       Sections 2 (2), 96 and 100-Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, Sections 72 (2) and (4)-Scope of.

       It is well settled law that neither the Charity Commissioner nor the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner can be considered as a Court. It is equally well-settled that the orders of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or if the Charity Commissioner do not amount to decrees within meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Charity Commissioner, the Deputy Charity Commissioner and the Assistant Charity Commissioner do exercise quasi-judicial functions and are liable to be considered as quasi-judicial Tribunals and not as Civil Courts.

       Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for filing of a first appeal against the decree of a Civil Court. Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure shall have to be read in conjunction with Section 96 of the Code read with Section 2 (2) of the code Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to appeals against appellate decrees passed by the first appellate Court in the appeals filed against decree of Civil Court under Section 96 of the Code. Section 100 of the Code is not applicable at all to further appeals against deemed decrees of the District Court. In the present case an appeal has filed under Section 72(4) of the Act. Proceedings before the District Court were in the nature of an appeal and the order Passed by the District Court is in the nature of a deemed decree. Held, that further appeal to the High Court under Section 73 (4) of the Act cannot be considered as a second appeal within meaning of the expression "second appeal" used in Section 100 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

       It is possible that is this case, the appeal .can proceed further on merits as the question of construction of deed of trust dated 13th November, 194t may involve a substantial question of law. This aspect of the case is however now quite clear. Several appeals arc being filed in this Court invoking Section 72 (4) of the Act. It is desirable and in the interest of justice that the aforesaid conflict of decisions between the learned Single Judges of the

       High Court as evidenced by the three judgments cited hereinabove is resolved at the earliest.

JUDGMENT

Arvind V. Savant, J.:---Heard all the learned Counsel; Shri R. S. Apte for the heirs of Appellant No. 1, Shri A. A. Kumbhakoni for the heirs of original respondent No. 1. Shri K.K. Tated, Assistant Government Pleader for Charity Commissioner, and State of Maharashtra, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

2. This appeal of 1979 has been placed before us pursuant to the order passed by the learned Chief Justice on a reference made by a learned Single Judge on 17th August 1994 for deciding the following three questions:

(1) Whether an appeal filed under section 72(4) of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is subject to restrictions and limitations imposed on a "Second Appeal" as prescribed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Whether an appeal under section 72(4) of the Act is maintainable even on questions of fact, mixed questions of fact and law or mere question of law?

(2) Whether the trust known as Gangubai's Shri Datta Trust, situate at Solapur created under the Deed of Trust dated 13th November 1941 is a public trust or is a private trust and whether the properties of the said trust including the income thereof are liable to be considered as income of public religious or charitable trust or as private income?

(3) Whether in any event the said trust is a public charitable trust in so far as it provides for utilization of 20% of its income for education of poor students, maintenance of poor widows and for assistance to the poor in connection with marriage or death. If so, whether the said trust is in any event liable to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950?

In view of the conflicting opinions expressed by some of the Single Judges of this Court, it has become necessary for us to decide, principally, question No. 1. framed above. However, before coming to the questions of law, few facts may be stated.

3. On 13th November 1941 Smt. Muniyabai @ Gangubai Sevakram Pardeshi of Solapur created a trust known as "Gangubai's Datta Trust". The Deed of Trust is at Exhibit 66. The original respondent No. 1 Leelabai was the daughter of Kausalyabai, who was the daughter of the settlor Smt. Muniabai alias Gangubai. Gangubai also executed a Will (Exhibit 100) on August 30, 1946. It appears that Leelabai also claimed that on the 9th April 1948, her grand mother Gangubai, had orally gifted the properties in her favour. The properties which are the subject matter of dispute before us are (i) House No. 95/B, corresponding to C.T.S. No. 8489/2 admeasuring 135.45 sq. mtrs. Murarji Peth, Solapur, on which the "Datta Mandir" is situated and (ii) House No. 95/C, corresponding to C.T.S. No. 8489/1, admeasuring 1.31 Acres on which the chawl is situated. We will refer to the details of the trust deed in the latter part of this judgment; suffice it to say that nearly 80% of the income viz. the rent derived from the tenements in the chawl situated in house No. 95/C was to be spent for performing pooja and observing religious festivals at the Datta Mandir as per the wishes of the settlor and only 20% of the income was to be spent for purposes, which could be called public purposes.

4. On 29th May 1952 Leelabai filed an application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune Region, Pune claiming that the properties in dispute were her private properties and were not the properties of a public trust. By his order dated 9th June 1953, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, on consideration of the deed of trust and other materials before him, held that the trust was not a public trust but was the private property of Gangubai, the settlor. In a suo motu proceeding by the Charity Commissioner, the order dated 9th June 1953 was set aside on 24th January 1959 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner for a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. The original appellant in this Court Shivprasad Pardeshi filed an application on 6-8-1959 under section 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 for registration of the trust cl

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top