The jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide whether a particular property belongs to a public trust is expressly barred by the provisions of section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, unless the suit falls within the purview of section 50 of the Act.

Headnote:
BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT - JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF TRUST PROPERTY - LEAVE OF COURT - ORDER II, RULE 4, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - Held, that the suit for recovery of possession of property belonging to a public trust is barred by section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, unless the suit falls within the purview of section 50 of the Act. The suit in the present case cannot be regarded as a suit falling within the purview of section 50, as it is not a suit where it is not left to the Court to decide whether a particular property does or does not belong to a public charitable trust. The plaintiffs cannot come to Court under section 50 even in respect of property which is not held by the Charity authorities to be a property belonging to the trust. The suit is also bad for want of the necessary leave of the Court under Order II, rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it includes a claim which cannot be joined in a suit for possession without the leave of the Court. However, the objection is a technical one and can be removed by granting to the plaintiffs the necessary leave at this stage.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, who are the trustees of a public religious and charitable trust, filed a suit for a declaration that the suit properties belonged to the trust and for possession of those properties, including the properties purchased by defendants Nos. 9 and 12. The defendants resisted the suit and on a perusal of the pleadings, the following issues were framed and heard as preliminary issues: (1) Whether this Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit. (2) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction and the Charity Commissioner alone has jurisdiction to determine whether the property in question is a Public Charity Trust. (3) Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against the defendants. (4) Whether the suit as framed, is maintainable without leave of the Court in view of the provisions of Order II, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (5) Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable for reasons mentioned in paragraph, 5 or 7 of the written statement of defendant No. 12. (6) Whether the plaintiffs have given valid and proper notices under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and whether proper notices have been served on defendants 10 and 11. (7) If the answer to the preceding issue be in the negative, whether the plaintiffs are en titled to maintain the suit. (8) Whether the suit as framed is bad for multifariousness as alleged in para 8 of the written statement of defendant No. 12.
Finding of the Court:

The learned Judge held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, that the suit was maintainable without the necessary permission of the Court under Order II, rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, and that the suit was not bad for multifariousness.
Issues: 1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. 2. Whether the suit is maintainable without the necessary permission of the Court under Order II, rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide whether a particular property belongs to a public trust is expressly barred by the provisions of section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, unless the suit falls within the purview of section 50 of the Act. 2. A suit for recovery of possession of property belonging to a public trust is barred by section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, unless the suit falls within the purview of section 50 of the Act. 3. The suit in the present case cannot be regarded as a suit falling within the purview of section 50, as it is not a suit where it is not left to the Court to decide whether a particular property does or does not belong to a public charitable trust. 4. The plaintiffs cannot come to Court under section 50 even in respect of property which is not held by the Charity authorities to be a property belonging to the trust. 5. The suit is also bad for want of the necessary leave of the Court under Order II, rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, as it includes a claim which cannot be joined in a suit for possession without the leave of the Court.
Final Decision: The civil revision application is partly allowed and the suit shall be returned to the trial Court for being proceeded with and disposed of according to law in the light of this judgment. The costs of this civil revision application shall abide and follow the final result of the suit.

JUDGMENT-This civil revision application has been directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court at Bombay on February 16, 1970, in Suit No. 1362 of 1960 on his file.

2. The suit in question was filed by two plaintiffs, who happen to be the trustees of the Bhagoji Balooji Keer Public Religious and Charitable Trust. This Trust was created under a deed of trust made by Bhagoji Balooji Keer on May 15, 1930. This Trust has been duly registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The properties included in this Trust admittedly include the property bearing Cadastral City Survey No. 657 situate at Mahim. Shortly after this Trust was made-in fact within seven days thereafter Bhagoji Keer acquired another property bearing Cadastral City Survey No. 656. This property is adjacent to the property bearing Cadastral City Survey No. 657 and some structures have been constructed thereon. One of them is "Dnyan Mandir" now known as Shree Cinema. It appears that this structure has been constructed on 922 sq. yds. out of City Survey No. 657 and partly on a portion of Cadastral City Survey No. 656.

3. Under the deed of trust, Bhagoji Balooji Keer and two others were the trustees. After Bhagojis death on February 24, 1944, his son Bhalchandra (defendant No.1) came to be appointed as a trustee in place of his deceased father along with the two other trustees appointed under the Trust. On May 23, 1946, this Bhalchandra was adjudicated insolvent with the result that his estate vested in the Official Assignee and his place as a trustee was taken by Bhagojis other son Anant (defendant No.3). In 1947, the Official Assignee filed a suit for the administration of the personal estate belonging to Bhagoji in which insolvent Bhalchandra was entitled to a share. That suit was Suit No. 807 of 1947 and the same was filed in the High Court. In that suit, the

Court Receiver was appointed as a Receiver of the property on June 16, 1947. The Official Assignee, in due course, took possession of Bhalchandras personal property. On April 27, 1954, new trustees were appointed in the proceeding of Civil Suit No. 625 of 1949 and some time thereafter the two plaintiffs along with defendant No.3 came to be appointed as the trustees of the Trust. Under order of the Court passed in the administration suit, the property known as Shree Cinema came to be sold by auction and was purchased by defendant No. 12 on October 1, 1958. Bhalchandra, it appears, had mortgaged his share in all the suit properties in favour of defendant No. 9 and his right; defendant No.9 subsequently purchased title and interest in those properties.

4. In 1958, the trustees moved the Charity Commissioner to include some more properties, which form the subject matter of this suit, as properties belonging to the Trust. That apparently was done under section 22A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, but the Charity Commissioner by his order dated September 29, 1958 held that the inquiry involved complicated questions of law and fact and the matter was, therefore, one, which ought to be decided by a competent civil Court. He, therefore, directed that the trustees may, after obtaining the Charity Commissioner sanction under section 51, institute the necessary suit under the provisions of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The plaintiffs thereafter moved the Charity Commissioner for the necessary sanction under section 51 and that sanction was accorded on April 20, 1959. Thereafter the suit-giving rise to this litigation was instituted by the two plaintiffs on January 30, 1960. In this suit the plaintiffs claimed a declaration that the suit properties belonged to the Trust made by Bhagoji Keer on May 15, 1930. They further claimed possession of those properties, including the properties purchased by defendants Nos. 9 and 12. Certain other reliefs, like mesne profits, etc. were also claimed in the suit.

5. As has already been mentioned,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document