The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for a comprehensive scheme for proper management and administration of the trust, considering the mismatch of the old constitution after the passing of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.

1. The facts leading to this appeal, in nutshell are as follows:-

(a) Late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar formed a society titled as “Buddhist Society of India”. It was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860.

(b) Constitution of the society, is the principal document which governs the functioning of the society. Copy of original constitution is in the paperbook at Exhibit-B Page 73 to 80.

(c) In view of Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, a Public Trust includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Therefore, an application for registration of this society as a Public Trust, under the B. P. T. Act, 1956 was submitted by Shri B. S. Gaikwad.

(d) Legal heirs of late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had claimed certain interest in the property and to that extent they had objected to the recording of those assets as the property of the Trust. It appears that later on said claim was not pursued by those heirs.

(e) After completing the inquiry in the application for registration of the society Buddhist Society of India as a Trust, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai ordered registration thereof as a public trust and also made declaration as regards certain property being the property of the Trust.

(f) It is alleged that the General Council of the society had chosen Yeshwant Bhimrao Ambedkar as Chairman of the society after death of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar.

(g) After death of Yeshwant Ambedkar his wife Meeratai Ambedkar was chosen to be the President. A resolution to that effect was adopted on 6/10/1977, copies whereof is at Page 96 Exhibit-D.

(h) Change report was filed before Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mumbai for bringing on record of the Buddhist Society of India, in Schedule I, due to election of Meeratai Yeshwant Ambedkar as the Chairman of society.

(i) The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mumbai rejected the prayer for registration of change by order dated 14/10/1997. Copy of said order dated 14/10/1977 is at Page 97.

(j) In said order dated 14/10/1977, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has observed that the Constitution of trust does not contain adequate and proper provisions as regards the management of society, and observed therefore, that the parties should take recourse of framing of a comprehensive scheme.

(k) Thereafter an application for framing of scheme was filed in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. It was registered as Application No. 192/1980. It was prayed therein that comprehensive scheme be framed.

(l) The application for framing of scheme was decided by the judgment and order dated 24/7/1981.

(m) The Joint Charity Commissioner was pleased to frame the scheme and also appointed initial trustees under the scheme. Copy of the judgment and order is at Page 55 to 60 and copy of the scheme is at Page 61 to 72.

(n) The judgment and order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner thereby framing scheme was challenged by Meeratai Yeshwant Ambedkar in City Civil Court, Mumbai, which was registered as Charity Application No.8 of 1981.

(o) The learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai allowed the Charity Application No.8/1981 and has set aside the scheme framed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, by judgment and order dated 11/9/1987.

(p) Present application under section 72(2) is filed by the applicants who had applied for framing of the scheme on 28th September, 1987.

2. Heard both sides at length and perused the record and precedents cited at bar.

3. When this appeal was admitted, practice of treating an application under section 72 (2) of the B. P. T. Act like a second appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code did not exist, which is now required.

4. Heard both sides on the point of framing substantial question of law, since any substantial question of law was not framed, now it is to be framed.

5. Parties were heard on the point of substantial question of law. Thereafter the substantial question of law as involved in this appeal is framed as follo