1. By consent matter is finally heard and declared. This Civil Revision Application is preferred by the original respondent against the order dated 23rd July, 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay below Exhibit 14 in Regular Civil Suit No.3535 of 2007. The suit is filed by the present respondent No.1 i.e. the plaintiff for a declaration that the resolution dated 7th September, 2007 passed by the defendant No.1-trust at its board meeting is arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law so also the resignation dated 8th September, 2007 submitted by the plaintiff is inconsequential and is of no effect and the plaintiff continues to be a permanent trustee in respect of the defendant No.1-trust. The plaintiff has also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant-trust to act upon the said resolution dated 7th September, 2007.

2. On 7th September, 2007 the respondent-trust has resolved that the plaintiff Mr. Vasudeo Purshottam Shetye i.e. the original respondent No.1 was not qualified to be appointed and continued as holding trustee or managing trustee as per rule/clause 2 (g) (h) r/w 5 (i) of the constitution of the trust and his appointment was per se illegal and was cancelled. The Judge cast issues including the issue of jurisdiction as the defendants have challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court under section 50 and 51 and also under section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Judge held that the civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. Hence, this Revision Application.

3. Mr.Parshurami, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the subject of removal of the respondent No.1 i.e. the original plaintiff from a managing trusteeship and his subsequent resignation fall under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 therefore, sanction of the Charity Commissioner under section 51 of the Act is necessary before filing the suit. It was submitted that section 51 provides protection to the trust from false and vexatious suits against the trust and its trustees. Moreover, the petitioners have submitted an application under section 22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for change and during the inquiry under the section, the respondent No.1 i.e. The plaintiff is going to be a necessary party. In support of his submissions he relied on the following judgments:

(i) CHURCH OF NORTH INDIA VS. LAVAJIBHAI RATANJIBHAI AND OTHERS (2005) 10 SUPREME COURT CASES 760

(ii) H.C.PATEL (PROF) & OTHERS VS KAUSHIK DESAI & ANR 2006 (1) Bom.C.R.162

(iii) Order dated 12th February, 2008 passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.H.Bhatia in CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.98 of 2006.

(iv) NAMGONDA JINGONDA PATIL VS.APPASAHEB BAPURAO WALWEKAR & OTHERS 2000 (Supp.) BOM.C.R.582.

4. In reply, Mr.Gole learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the order passed by the Judge of the City Civil Court is correct and legal as the respondent has filed the suit not pertaining to a public purpose but, for protection of his private right as a managing trustee of the said trust. He argued that in the suit he wants to vindicate his civil rights or individual rights and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be ousted. The suit necessarily falls within the jurisdiction of the civil court. He further submitted that the respondent No.1 had submitted the resignation out of frustration and under the pressure of the petitioners and the court will have to go into the facts of the matter. He was removed from the trusteeship because, the managing trustees had formed an erroneous opinion that he does not belong to ‘Gaud Saraswat Brahmin’ caste and the membership of the trust is caste-based. The learned counsel has relied on the following judgments in support of his claim:

1. (i) SAHEBGOUDA (dead) BY L.Rs.& OTHERS V S OGEPPA & OTHERS AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2743; (ii) RAJESHWAR SINGH & OTHERS VS. BASDEO NARAYA N SINGH & OTHERS AIR 1921 PATNA 51 1 5. A short point whether relief