1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No.75 of 1985, decided on 6.12.1996 dismissing the appeal of the appellants and confirming the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.104 of 1984 by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon on 29.7.1985 decreeing the suit of the respondent for ejectment, possession and mesne profits. The appellants are the legal heirs of the original defendant and respondent is the original plaintiff. The respondent had filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.101 of 1984 for ejectment, possession and mesne profits. The suit filed by the respondent Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha, a registered Public Trust was through one of it’s trustees, Gokuldas Kalyanji Shelarka. It was the case of the respondent that original defendant (hereinafter referred to as “appellants” for the sake of convenience) was inducted in the suit house, as described in plaint paragraph No.1, as tenants on monthly rent of Rs.25/. The respondent, sought permission from the Rent Controller and Resident Deputy Collector, Buldhana for issuing a quit notice and sent a notice to the appellants on 29th July, 1984 intimating them that their tenancy stood terminated with effect from 30.4.1984. After receiving notice, appellants did not hand over the possession of the suit house, and therefore, respondent brought a suit against them for ejectment and mesne profits. The suit was resisted by them on various grounds. One of the grounds of contest was that the respondent had no authority to file a suit on behalf of the Trust, Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust” for the sake of brevity). The trial Court framed six issues, and one of them was, whether or not Gokuldas Kalyanji Shelarka was duly authorized to sue for and on behalf of the Trust. Substantial questions of law involved in this appeal resolve around this issue. The other issues related to legality and validity of the quit notice, entitlement of the Trust to the possession of the suit house, tenability of suit for want of permission of Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and decision of Rent Controller operating as resjudicata regarding the rate of rent with which we are not concerned in this appeal.

2. The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the rival parties found that respondent was duly authorized to file the suit and the Trust was entitled to possession of suit house, and accordingly decreed the suit by its judgment and order passed on 29.7.1985. Aggrieved by this decree, appellants filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Khamgaon, Distt. Buldhana. The leaned Additional District Judge, Khamgaon confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and order passed on 6th December, 1996. Not satisfied with this Judgment, the appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal. The appeal was admitted by this Court on 15th June, 1998 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1) Whether the suit in the present form as filed by one of the trustees is maintainable without there being made all the trustees and the plaintiffs in this suit ?

2) Whether the learned Additional District Judge was right in not deciding the application filed by the appellant under Order 6 Rule 17 at Exhibit10, dated 7.4.1994, for amendment of the written statement incorporating the defence about non–joinder of proper and necessary parties ?”

3. There appears to be some typographical error in formulating the question No.1, and therefore, it is reformulated as under:

“Whether the suit filed in the present form by one of the trustees is maintainable without all trustees being joined as plaintiffs in the suit ?”

4. The appeal was heard by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge in his judgment rendered on 6th August, 2009 fram