The present appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of learned counsel. The record and proceedings are also received.

2. The only issue involved in the present appeal is about the jurisdiction of the District Court, to try and entertain the suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession in view of Sec. 79 and 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as the "B. P. T. Act" for the sake of brevity).

3. The plaintiff a public trust registered under the provisions of the B. P. T. Act has filed a suit for declaration of ownership and possession. The District Court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction holding that, in view of Sec. 80 read with Sec. 79 of the B. P. T. Act, the Civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.

4. Shri S. P. Shah, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants submits that the suit was filed for possession and declaration of ownership after seeking necessary sanction from the Charity Commissioner U/Sec. 51 of the B. P. T. Act. The said suit was perfectly maintainable within the meaning of Sec. 50 of the B. P. T. Act. According to the learned counsel, suit was instituted before the District Court as is contemplated U/Sec. 2(4) of the B. P. T. Act. The suit of the plaintiffs was perfectly maintainable as per Sec. 50 (iv) (a), (p) and (q).

5. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in a case of Keki Pestonji Jamadar Vs. Rodabai Khodadad Merwan Irani reported in 1972 Mh. L.J. 427.

6. Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the office of the Charity Commissioner has held that the suit property is not a trust property. Now again the Civil Court cannot go into the said question. In view of Sec. 79, 80 and 19 of the B. P. T. Act the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred from deciding the issue of ownership. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Church of North India Vs. Lavjibhai Ratanjibhai and others reported in (2005) 10 S.C.C. 760.

7. The learned counsel further submits that, even if it is assumed that the Civil Court has got right to grant relief of possession, still first the issue of ownership will have to be adjudicated by the Charity Commissioner and then only the suit for possession can be filed before Civil Court. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Dev Chavta and another Vs. Ganesh Mahadeo Deshpande and another reported in 1970 AIR (Bom.) 412.

8. Before I advert to the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel, it would be relevant to refer to the relevant clauses of Sec. 50 of the B. P. T. Act which reads as follows:

50. Suit by or against or relating to public trusts or trustees or others In any case,

(i) ...........

(ii) where a direction or decree is required to recover the possession of or to follow a property belonging or alleged to be belonging to a public trust or the proceeds thereof or for an account of such property or proceeds from a trustee, ex-trustee, alienee, trespasser or any other person including a person holding adversely to the public trust but not a tenant or licensee,

(iii) ...........

(iv) for any declaration or injunction in favour of or against a public trust or trustee or trustees or beneficiary thereof, the Charity Commissioner after making such enquiry as he thinks necessary, or two or more persons having an interest in case the suit is under sub-clauses ( i) to (iii), or one or more such persons in case the suit is under sub clause (iv) having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner as provided in section 51 may institute a suit whether contentious or not in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree for any of the following relief's:

(a) an order for the recovery of the possession of such property or p