The court emphasized the importance of raising legal questions within the limitation period and considered the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under the BPT Act.

ROSHAN DALVI, J.

1. The plaintiffs who are two trustees of a registered public trust have taken out this originating summons for putting up certain questions before this Court as affecting the rights of beneficiaries and arising in the administration of the estate of the plaintiffs' trust. The questions are rather unique. The plaintiff would want the Court to answer:-

(a) Whether the sanction to sale the trust property dated 13th November, 1979 issued by the Charity Commissioner stands complied.

(b) Whether the execution of the conveyance without the simultaneous execution of the lease deed would amount to breach of the condition of sanction dated 13th November, 1979.

(c) Whether such execution is valid and lawful.

(d) Whether the breach of the order dated 13th November, 1979 can be remedied and rectified by execution of appropriate lease deed.

(e) Whether or not the execution of the lease deed will invalidate conveyance.

(f) Whether the trustees are required to take legal proceedings to recover possession of the trust property from defendant Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Under clause 4A of the agreement dated 18th October, 1978 the sanction of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, (BPT) was to be taken. Under clause 5 of the said agreement upon the completion of sale the purchaser had to enter into a lease with the vendors as the trustees of structure marked “A”.

3. The plaintiffs claim that their predecessor in title who were the earlier trustees of the plaintiffs' trust entered into an agreement to sell the trust property upon the sanction of the Charity Commissioner and simultaneously upon the sale the purchasers were to lease one structure marked “A” on the plan annexed to the said agreement to the trust.

4. The conveyance deed has been executed on 30th March, 1982. The lease deed has not been executed till date. If the lease deed was not executed as required simultaneously with the conveyance deed the trustees would require to sue the purchasers for specific performance or for directions to execute the lease deed. The suit for specific performance would be required to be filed essentially within three years from 30th March, 1982 since that was the specified date of the conveyance. The suit would become barred on 30th March, 1985. That suit has became barred by Law of Limitation. The plaintiffs contend that pursuant to the agreement between the parties the Charity Commissioner sanctioned the sale. The sale was sanctioned in terms of the agreement. Consequently the sanction was also subject to the execution of the lease deed. The lease deed has not been executed and consequently the plaintiffs claim to know whether order of sanction has been complied or whether the sanction has been breached and consequently whether sale executed of the deed of conveyance without the lease deeds would be valid or if not valid it could be rectified.

5. All these questions would arise at the time of the execution of the conveyance itself or immediately thereafter. The cause of action to sue in the execution of the lease deed or to remedy the act or to obtain a declaration that such execution of the conveyance is not valid would arise from the date of the conveyance itself. The questions which are required to be answered would be required to be answered by the Court if the remedy that the Court may suggest or opinion that it would give would be legally enforceable. If the remedy itself is barred the originating summons would be of little consequence.

6. It would, therefore, have to be seen whether the originating summons would be barred by the Law of Limitation. It is an application made to Court under provisions of Chapter XVII of the High Court Original Side Rules. Under Article 137 of schedule 1 to the Limitation Act, 1963 in application for which the period of limitation is not prescribed would require to be taken out within three years from when the right to apply accrued. The right to apply in this c