1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner – Trust challenges the decision rendered by the District Judge – I in Regular Civil Appeal No.78 of 2006, whereby he set aside the decree for possession in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

3. The facts are as follows The petitioner/plaintiff is a trust and is the owner of the suit property. It is alleged that one Namdeo Wankhade was inducted as a licensee in the suit premises and in lieu of the same he used to render the services to the trust. It is also alleged that he used to clean the premises and offer ‘Puja and Archana’. It was agreed that the licensee should not encroach upon any portion of the property belonging to the petitioner. It was further agreed that upon death of the original licensee, the licence was liable to be terminated. After death of Namdeo his son Ramkrushna became a licensee. Ramkrushna was also performing the same job and after his death the defendants are occupying the premises. The petitioner/plaintiff contends that since Ramkrishna has died and the licence has come to an end.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. They contend that they are occupying the premises as Vahiwatdar to the trust and they have been rendering the Puja in the said temple since last more than hundred years. They have, therefore, still right to continue to perform Puja in the temple and plaintiff cannot violate their rights. The learned judge of the trial court decreed the suit.

5. The defendants/respondents preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge found that the defendants are the licensees. They have not perfected the title by adverse possession. The learned District Judge, however, found that the suit was not maintainable because of the fact that all the trustees of the trust have not joined the action in filing the suit. He, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree and dismissed the suit. The petitioner/plaintiff, therefore, feels aggrieved.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

7. The main controversy that is required to be resolved in the petition is whether a suit for possession is maintainable at the instance of only one of the trustees.

8. Mr.Chopde, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Indian Trust Act as well as the decision rendered by this court in 1994 Mh.L.J.280 (Nagar Wachan Mandir, Pandharpur ..vs.. Akbaralli Abdulhusen and Sons and ors.). He submits that even by virtue of the Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 a single trustee cannot sue for possession of the trust property. According to him, Section 47 of the Indian Trust Act does not allow a trustee to delegate his powers to another trustee and if said powers cannot be delegated, one trustee cannot institute a suit. He submits that in this case precisely, the petitioner has contended that resolution has been passed authorising one of the trustees to institute the suit. This he submits is in breach of Section 47 of the Indian Trust Act.

9. Shri Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand contends that Section 47 of the Indian Trust Act has no application to a public trust at all, as said Act applies to the private trust. He submits that the plaintiff is a public trust admittedly and therefore, is not governed by Section 47 at all and therefore, the impediment as given in Section 47 would not come in the way of the trustees in delegating the powers to one of the trustees. He also submits that every public trust is basically a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and therefore ought to be said to be governed by the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. He also contends that Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act permits a Chairman, President or a Mem