1. Although this proceeding is registered as First Appeal it has to be decided as if it is a Second Appeal. Before deciding this Appeal, therefore, the Court must examine the case to find out as to whether there is any substantial questions of law involved in this Appeal.

2. The facts leading to the litigation, in short can be stated as under.-

3. One Shri Jehangir Bomanji Boman Behram (henceforth be referred to as the testator) was a rich Solicitor of this City, who had made a Will and a codicil for bequeathing his properties to various people. He died on 29th December, 1949, as a childless widower. Both the Will and Codicil were produced before this Court for obtaining a Probate and on 14th August, 1950 it was granted.

4. The testator had made a wish in the will to establish a ‘Residuary Trust Fund’, which would be created by sale of all his properties, which were not bequeathed to any one in particular. It is common ground that at least two properties were not specifically bequeathed to any of the relatives and they were: one at Mazgaon known as Boman Behram Buildings and the other was Bungalow at Bhagur, near Devlali in Dist. Nashik. Besides the two properties mentioned above there was also a bank account having some balance. It is common ground that these three properties thus became source for forming the residuary trust fund. But, before the executors could consolidate the residuary trust fund they died one by one till 1986.

5. For quite some time no one came forward to get himself/herself appointed as administrator of the probate. Out of the three properties mentioned above the property known as Boman Behram

Buildings I am told is quite a prominent one situated at Mazgaon consisting of two multi storing buildings with residential flats and shops. All these buildings are occupied by various tenants.

6. One Smt. Banoo came forward in the month March 1998 and made an application to this court for getting herself appointed as the administrator of the probate. During the pendency of such application Smt. Banoo executed a ‘Deed of Settlement of a public trust’ on 1st December, 1998 in which she said that since she was the widow of one of the executors of Will of the testator, she was entitled to execute the Deed of Settlement. In this Deed of Settlement she mentioned specifically the above mentioned properties as the trust properties. This Deed of Settlement was registered at office of Sub Registrar, Mumbai on 5th December, 1998. After the registration of the trust Deed mentioned above, Smt. Banoo made application to the Asst.Charity Commissioner for registration of the Public Trust under S.18 of the Bombay Public Trust Act.

7. The Assistant Charity Commissioner after following due procedure by giving public notice etc. ordered registration of public trust on 6th April, 1999.

8. Within few months there from on 3rd August, 1999 the Appellants here moved a Revision Application U/s.70 A of Bombay Public Trust Act before Joint Charity Commissioner challenging the correctness of the order directing registration of public trust etc.

9. On the other hand one Manek K. Nariman a relative of the testator moved a caveat on 17th February, 2000 in Smt. Banoo’s application which was pending before the High Court for getting herself appointed as administrator of the Will. In view of this contest to Banoo’s application the same was converted into a suit and remain pending till Banoo’s death on 2nd November, 2000. Due to Banoo’s death the said suit/her application came to be abated.

10. On 9th August, 2001, Avabai and Kavas the intervener here, who are also relatives of the testator moved an application for joining the revision application, which was pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner. They were supporting the Revision Application. On 26th April, 2002 their application was allowed. However, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed the Revision application and refused to interfere in the impugned order direct