ORAL JUDGMENT :- This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Latur in Civil Appeal No. 172 of 1981, dated 20-2-1986. The appellant deceased Keshav in this second appeal was the original plaintiff, who had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 476 of 1978 in the court of learned Civil Judge S.D. Latur for declaration and injunction, against the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, State of Maharashtra and others. Said suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge S.D. by his judgment and decree passed on 21-9-1981. The parties hereinafter, are referred to their status as the plaintiff and defendants.

2. Second Appeal was admitted by this Court by the order passed on 19-31986. However, no substantial question of law was formulated. Therefore, I heard learned counsel for the parties on the grounds involving substantial questions of law on 10-11-2006. Following are the grounds involving substantial questions of law, framed by this Court on 10-11-2006.

Ground No.6: Whether the loam was the only question had to be decided by the Civil Court in order to consider the question of the applicability of the Act and the said question was completely out side the scope of the Trust Act. Therefore, there is no bar of Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act to a Civil Court.

Ground No. 10 : It is an error to hold that the suit is beyond time.

3. Shri Solshe, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable and the trial Court has justifiably passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. He also submits that the cause of action arose as described in the plaint and suit filed by the plaintiff is well within limitation. He relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Church of North India vs. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and others, 2005 AIR SCW 2738 and Keki Pestonji Jamadar and another vs. Khodadad Merwan Irani and others, 1972 Mh.L.J. 427 = AIR 1973 Bom. /30. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ramnarayan s/o ManUal Sahu through LRs. Smt.Kamal wd/o Ramnarayan Sahu and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005 (2) Mh.L.J. 95.

4. Learned counsel Shri Deshmukh, appearing for respondents 3 to 9 submits that the first appellate Court has rightly reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The trust is registered on 23-1-1964 and the suit property is the trust property and therefore, Civil Court has no jurisdiction. He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Church of North india (supra).

5. Shri Dighe, learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the judgment of the first appellate court. He, however, fairly admits that the State of Maharashtra and Charity Commissioner, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure had filed Appeal No. 92 of 1982, challenging the judgment and decree passed in the suit before the first appellate court, which was subsequently withdrawn.

6. In the matter of Church of North India (supra), the Apex Court has held :-

"The principle enunciated in each of the decision laid down relate to the fact-situation obtaining therein. In each case indisputably the list arose for determination of a question relating to interpretation of one or the other clause enumerated in different provisions of the BPT Act which come either within the exclusive jurisdiction of the statutory authorities or otherwise. The Civil Court will have no jurisdiction in relation to a matter whereover the statutory authorities have the requisite jurisdiction. On the other hand, if a question arises, which is outside the purview of the Act or in relation to a matter, unconnected with the administration or possession of the trust property, the Civil Court may have jurisdiction. In this case, having regard to the nature of the lis, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was clearly barred."

Thus, the application of principles laid down have to be considered in relat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document