JUDGMENT - KANADE V.M., J.:---The appellant is the original defendant No. 1, the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the original plaintiffs and the respondent No. 8 is the original defendant No. 2, (for the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as "plaintiffs" and "defendant" Nos. 1 and 2").

FACTS

2. The plaintiff, Vithalrao Motiramji Mandale, had filed the suit for possession and damages against the defendant No. 1 Trust and defendant No. 2 Vasant Mahadeorao Fartode. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that plot No. 57 was owned by defendant No. 2 Vasant Mahadeorao Fartode and it was carved out of Survey No. 33 and converted into a plot. The plaintiff intended to purchase the said plot and, therefore, he published a notice in daily "Matrubhumi" dated 2-10-1982 inviting objections in respect of the said plot and since no objections were received, he purchased it from defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 14-10-1982 for a total consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. On execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit field. The case of the plaintiff is that when he wanted to put a fence around the said plot and had started the fencing work on 4-12-1982, after couple of days, when he went to complete the work of fencing, he found that there was a board which was put up on the said plot, on which it was mentioned that the defendant No. 2 had given the said plot to the trust. The plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant No. 1 on 7-12-1982 asking the trust to remove the board and fencing from the plot. However, the defendant No. 1 gave a reply on 23-12-1982 and alleged that they were the owners of the said plot. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for possession.

3. The defendant No. 1 filed its written statement and it was contended that the defendant No. 2 had donated the said plot to defendant No. 1 by virtue of gift-deed dated 31-1-1974 and as such, after 31-1-1974 defendant No. 2 was divested of the title. The trial Court framed issues and the suit was partly decreed. The plaintiff's claim for recovery of possession of the suit plot was dismissed. However, the defendant No. 2 was directed to return the amount of Rs. 17,500/- to the plaintiff with costs along with future interest at the rate of Rs. 10/- per cent per annum.

4. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amravati. The defendants also filed cross-objections challenging the findings of the trial Court in respect of the gift-deed. It is contended by the defendant No. 1 that the lower Court ought to have held that the gift deed dated 31-1-1974 was admissible in evidence and was enforceable in law. The lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the gift-deed in favour of the trust was not admissible in evidence and it was an unregistered document and did not fulfil the conditions required under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and that it did not give any title in favour of the defendant No. 1. The lower Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the Civil Court which held that considering the nature of the suit, it was not necessary to add all the trustees as defendants and it further held that the claim of the plaintiff could not be disallowed on the ground that the defendant No. 1 was a trust and other trustees were necessary parties. The trust-defendant No. 1 has filed this second appeal. Second appeal was admitted by this Court by order dated 9-7-1990 and substantial question of law was raised in respect of ground Nos. 1 and 2. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are reproduced herein below:

(1) Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified when it totally ignore the law of the land? The sections 50 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act clearly states that prior permission of the Charity Commissioner is a must when suit is to be instituted against the Public Trust.

(2) Order 31, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code categorically says that all the trustees must be made parties in the suit ins

Click Here to Read the rest of this document