The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for cancellation of the Sale Deed executed in favor of Defendant No.7, and the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court in respect of some of the reliefs sought in the suit.

1. Admit, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties taken up for hearing forthwith.

2. The revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure is invoked against the order 25/9/2013 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik. By the said order the Trial Court has held that the said Court would have jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit in question.

3. The Applicant herein is the original Defendant No.7 and the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the original Plaintiffs in the Suit in question being Special Civil suit No.433 of 2012. The said Suit has been filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for cancellation of the Sale Deed dated 2/7/2012 executed in favour of the Defendant No.7, and that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 be directed to execute the Sale Deed jointly in favour of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.7. A further declaration is sought that the Sale Deed executed between the Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and Defendant No.7 dated 2/7/2012 is not binding on the Plaintiffs. An exhaustive reference to all the prayers in the Plaint would be made in the latter part of this order.

4. The background facts giving rise to filing of the Suit in question can be stated thus:-

The suit property bears Gat No.30/1+2+3/3 and admeasures 1 Hectare 30 Ares situated at village Moharam Belatgavhan in Nashik. The said property belonged to the Defendant No.1 i.e. Dwarkadas Pragji Vrindavan Charitable Trust. In view of the fact that the Trust was not in a position to look after the said property, a decision was taken in the meeting of the Trust dated 1/7/2010 to sell the said property. A resolution accordingly came to be passed on the said day. In terms of the said resolution, notice came to be issued in the daily newspaper “Day View” and “Dainik Gavkari” on 24/7/2010 and 29/7/2010 calling for offers in a sealed envelope, and the condition was that a D.D. for Rs.10,00,000/- was to be submitted along with the offer which in turn was to be submitted within 30 days. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.7 having come to know of the said advertisement decided to jointly put an offer for the said plot of land and in terms of the said tender notice paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in the following manner.

Sr.No. Name Amount Date DD No.

1 Shri Pratik Balasaheb Rahade 3,35,000/- 25/8/2010 658187

2 Shri Dipak Vishwanath Pingle 3,32,000/- 25/8/2010 921752

3 Shri Dipak Vishwanath Pingle 5,00,000/- 10/06/07 919807

4 Shri Pratap Shivaji Chumble 3,33,000/-

?

The Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.7 submitted their offer of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Since the offer given by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.7 was the highest offer received, the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 i.e. the Trustees accepted the offer given by the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.7. It appears that the Trust had got the property valued for ascertaining the market value of the property prior to the advertisement being issued. The Defendant Nos.2 to 6 thereafter in the meeting dated 2/9/2010 passed a resolution accepting the offer given by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.7, and accordingly entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 17/9/2010. The said Memorandum of Understanding was between the Defendant Nos.2 to 6 and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.7. Since the sanction was required under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), the Defendant No.1 Trust submitted an application for sanction which was numbered as Inquiry Application No.113 of 2011 and which was filed on 17/9/2010. During pendency of the said Inquiry Application No.113 of 2011 one Ali Ahmad Ramzan Ali Choudhari submitted an offer of Rs.1,30,00,000/- for the said plot of land along with deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- in the office of the Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. In the said inquiry proceedings under Section 36 of the said Act, in view of the higher offer received of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, the Charity Commissioner pas