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

1999 Supreme(Bom) 636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
H.L. Gokhale, J.
Gafoor Ali Hussain through legal heirs..... Appellants.
Versus
Ram Mahadik others..... Respondents.
First Appeal No. 158 of 1999 with Cross Objection (Stamp) No. 9365 of 1998, decided on 25-8-1999.
Advocates appeared :
R.A. Thorat, for appellants.
G.N. Salunkhe, for respondent Nos. 1 to 9.

Headnote:Sections 50 and 51-Institution of suit against trespasser-Public trust property-Trust or trustees can institute such suit-Consent of Charity Commissioner not necessary.- The distinction in clause (ii) provided that suits against trespassers could be filed only with the consent of the Charity Commissioner but that was not so in suits against tenants or licensees. A cursory reading of the section may lead one to the view which Mr. Thorat was canvassing. However, it is relevant to note that the section states that in the cases which are mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 50, the Charity Commissioner may institute a suit in certain circumstances. Section 51 also provides that for other persons having interest in public trust intending to file such a suit, they must obtain consent of the Charity Commissioner. Thus, however, does not mean that other trustees cannot file suit which is contemplated under Section 50. The language in Section 50 that the Charity Commissioner may institute a suit or the language in Section 51, that other interested persons may institute a suit with the consent of Charity Commissioner, does not mean that otherwise, the trust or trustees do not have powers to institute such a suit. In fact this controversy has been resolved to a Division Bench of this Court in the Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta and others v. Vasant Dnanaji Patil and others, 1992 Mah LJ 275. Mr. Salunkhe and Mr. Kadam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred me to that judgment which considers the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court on this point and holds that the trustee is the legal owner of the property and enjoys all the rights inherent in a natural owner of property and can sue to recover trust property. Section 50 cannot apply as a bar to the substantive right of the trustee to institute suit. No permission under Section 51 is necessary in such a case. In view of the above clear position, the learned Judge of the City Civil Court was right in taking the view that the suit was maintainable and the consent of the Charity Commissioner was not necessary as a condition precedent.

JUDGMENT - H.L. GOKHALE, J.:---This appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 24-12-1997 passed by a learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, in Suit No. 3399 of 1983. That suit was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein who are the trustees of a public charitable trust which is known as "Nagrik Sahaya Kendra". The said trust runs a high school known as "Dnyaneshwar Vidyalaya" in Wadala area of the city. The case of these respondents was that the appellants and the respondent No. 10 were trespassers on a part of a shed (adjoining to the high school) belonging to the said trust represented by respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and hence they sought a decree for possession which has come to be granted by the learned Judge. It is relevant to note that because of sheer pressure of the work in the City Civil Court, it took 15 years for the suit to be decided.

2. This First Appeal was admitted on 16-2-1998. Thereafter, on being pointed out the requirements of the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 the record and proceedings were called and hearing of the appeal was expedited by another Judge. The appellants were depositing Rs. 300/- per month in the trial Court. The learned Judge, by his order dated 5-3-1998, increased the amount to Rs. 1500/- per month (inclusive of the above referred Rs. 300/-) during the pendency and disposal of the appeal with liberty to these respondents to withdraw the said amount. I am told that this amount is being deposited regularly.

3. After the appeal was admitted, Cross Objection bearing (Stamp) No. 9365 of 1998 has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 who have pointed out in the Cross Objection that although the principal prayer in the suit was for possession of the part of the shed known as Mid Day Shelter, prayer (c) thereof was to direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month by way of compensation for use of a part of the said Mid Day Shelter from May 1983 onwards till the hearing and final disposal of this suit. In para 10 of the plaint, it was pointed out that the defendants were using 1/3rd of the shed and that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim compensation at the rate of 1,500/- as stated above till the disposal of the suit and till such time that the defendants remove their goods from the said Mid Day Shelter. Thus, there was an averment of mesne profit which was not considered by the learned Judge while passing the decree. In para 5 of the Cross Objection, it is submitted that mesne profits ought to have been determined at Rs. 10,000/- and more per month from the date of decree considering the daily increasing values of the properties.

4. After the matter came before me, same request for early hearing was made. Therefore, the matter was heard from time to time and is now being disposed of with this order.

5. The respondents have averred in their plaint that the said trust was registered under Registration No. R-1991. The school building is situated at Wadala Estate Scheme No. 57 and at the time of filing of the suit in the year 1983, there were in all 2700 students. Thereafter they have stated that for the benefits of students, the Mid Day Shelter was constructed by way of a recreational centre for students to play, sit, relax, gather for school programmes and to conduct their other activities such as Gymnasium and Health Centre etc. The Mid Day Shelter is stated to be of the size of 40 x 80 with asbestos sheets at a height of about 40 feet from the ground. It has enclosed the under ground water tank and electric pump of the school at one end and has a couple of toilets on the other side. It has three entrances. This centre is also disclosed in the schedule of property of the Trust .

6. Thereafter, it is stated in the plaint that earlier one Mr. M.R. Apte was the trustee of the trust and because of his mismanagement, action was taken against him by passing a Resolution in the year 1969 to remove him from the trusteeship. Mr. Apte filed a suit in the City


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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