DAGA V.C., J.: - This appeal at the instance of Shri Cutchi Visa Oswal Derawasi Jain Pathshala ("Pathshala Trust" for short) is directed against the order dated 17th June, 2004 passed by the City Civil Court at Bombay while dismissing Notice of Motion No. 809 of 2004 moved in S.C. Suit No. 552 of 2004, whereby prayer for temporary injunction to restrain defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 herein : Shri Cutchi Visha Oswal Derawasi Jain Mahajan ("Mahajan Trust" for short) and their trustees from interfering with the management, administration and appointment of trustees came to be rejected.

The Factual Matrix :

2.The factual matrix disclosed by the appellant reveals that the appellant/original plaintiff-Pathshala Trust is an Education Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ("Trust Act" for short ) at No. E-539 running two schools. Respondent No. 1/ original defendant No. 1- Mahajan Trust is also a public Trust duly registered under the Trust Act engaged in religious activities.

3.The appellant-Pathshala Trust alleged that it is governed by the trust deed dated 19th July, 1905, Rules and Regulations made thereunder. That respondent No. 1-Mahajan Trust is an independent Trust. It is governed by its own independent Constitution, Rules and Regulations. It has no control over the management of the appellant-Pathshala Trust. That mode of succession of the appellant-Pathshala Trust to the trusteeship is as per Clause 17 of the trust deed dated 19th July, 1905; which provides that trustees on their Trust are to be appointed by the Cutchi Visa Oswal Deravasi Jain Caste ("C.V.O.D. Jain Caste" for short).

4.The appellant-Pathshala Trust claimed that some time in the year 1985 the trustees of the respondent No. 1-Mahajan Trust had approached Bombay High Court for getting its scheme amended so as to exercise their right to control, manage and administer the appellant-Pathshala Trust. According to them, appellant-Pathshala Trust was not a party to the said proceedings before the High Court as such they were required to seek discretions from the then Charity Commissioner vide their letter dated 4th October, 1985 so as to confirm their status vis-a-vis respondent No. 1-Mahajan Trust. According to them, in reply, the then Deputy Charity Commissioner Mr. R.B. Aragade, vide his letter dated 18th November, 1985 informed the appellant-Pathshala Trust that both Trusts were independent of each other. The appellant-Trust, thus, claimed that, in the light of the said reply, they were required to amend their Constitution in the meeting of the 'C.V.O.D. Jain Caste' held on 4th October, 1995. The amended Constitution was to take effect from 1st February, 1996. Accordingly, the same has taken effect for the said date. At this juncture, it will not be out of place to mention that, according to the appellant-Trust, the "CVOD Jain Caste" means entire Jain community of Mumbai. In their submission, the word "Caste" appearing therein does not have any reference to Mahajans or Mahajan Trust.

5.The appellant-Pathshala Trust further claimed that vide their letter dated 18th January, 1996 they did submit copy of the amended Constitution along with copy of the old Constitution with translation thereof in English to report changes to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Bombay for being recorded in the register of Bombay Public Trusts vide its covering letter dated 18th January, 1996.

6.The appellant-Pathshala Trust further claimed that the Chairman and Honorary Secretary viz. V.K. Korani of the appellant-Trust, by his letter dated 3rd April, 1996, addressed to the trustees of the respondent No. 1-Trust, had brought to their notice that the appellant-Pathshala Trust being governed by the Trust Deed dated 19th July, 1905, the trustees of the Pathshala Trust have been selected and nominated by the Jain Caste as such respondent No. 1-Mahajan Trust has no locus to interfere with their affairs. The very same stand was reiterated by them in their another lett