1. This is an Originating Summons filed under Rule 238 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).

2. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the permanent trustees of the first defendant trust which was established under an indenture of trust dated 5th July, 1978 and which is registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (BPT Act). Defendant Nos.4 to 11 are described by the plaintiff as purported trustees. Defendant Nos.12, 13 and 14 are also permanent trustees. Defendant Nos.15 and 16 are described as term trustees. Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 5 to 11 are the contesting defendants. The remaining defendants support the plaintiff.

3(A). On 12th December, 2011, a preliminary objection as to jurisdiction under section 80 of the BPT Act was raised. During the course of the arguments on the preliminary issue, Mr. Chagla also raised another preliminary objection under section 51 of the BPT Act. I answered the preliminary issues in the negative and directed the parties to address me on the merits stating that I would give my reasons for the decision on the preliminary issues while dealing with the merits. While replying to the arguments on merits on behalf of the plaintiff, two further preliminary objections were raised based on clause 11(v) of the trust deed and under the Limitation Act. I will, however, answer the preliminary issues in the following order :-

(I) Whether the jurisdiction of the Court to interpret the clauses of the trust deed is barred by virtue of clause 11(v) thereof?

(II) Whether this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain and try this Originating Summons in view of section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950?

(III) Whether the Originating Summons is not maintainable as the plaintiff had not obtained the permission of the Charity Commissioner under section 51 of the BPT Act to file it?

(IV) Whether the Originating Summons is barred by limitation?

4. I will refer to the relevant facts, the clauses of the trust deed and the submissions in respect thereof while dealing with the merits of the matter. They are not relevant to the preliminary issues. For the purpose of the preliminary issues, it is sufficient to note that the plaintiff seeks only the interpretation of certain clauses of the trust deed.

5. It was clarified on behalf of the plaintiff that this Originating Summons is filed only under Rule 238, which reads as under:

“238. Who may apply for the issue of originating summons and in respect of what matters.- The executors or administrators of a deceased person or any of them and the trustees under any deed or instrument or any of them, and any person claiming to be interested in the relief sought as creditor, devisee, legatee, heir or legal representative, or as beneficiary under the trusts of any deed or instrument, or as claiming by assignment or otherwise under any such creditor or other person as aforesaid, may apply for the issue of an Originating Summons returnable before the Judge in Chambers for such relief of the nature or kind following as may by summons be specified and circumstances of the case may require (that is to say), the determination, without an administration of the estate or trust, of any of the following questions or matters:-

(a) any question affecting the rights or interest of the person claiming to be creditor, devisee, legatee, heir or legal representative or beneficiary;

(b) the ascertainment of any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, legal representatives, beneficiaries or others;

(c) the furnishing of any particular accounts by the executors, administrators or trustees and the vouching (when necessary) of such accounts;

(d) the payment into Court of any moneys in the hands of the executors, administrators or trustees;

(e) directing the executors, administrators or trustees to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their character as such executors, administrators or trustees;

(f) the ap