G.S. PATEL, J.

1. The facts of the case are straightforward. The issues they raise, though narrow, are not. A very great deal of learning has been cited on both sides of the debate: some of the precedents are very old indeed. Counsel have argued that later decisions effectively upturn the older ones, even if they do not say so in so many words. There are two principal issues of law: first, limitation; and, second, whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is ousted in claim such as this because of the statutory provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (“MPTA”). [Earlier the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Act 29 of 1950). The Act’s title was changed by Mah. 29 of 2012, Schedule, entry 43, retrospectively with effect from 1st May 1960 ]. Mr. Seervai and Mr. Andhyarujina for Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 urge me to hold that the Plaintiffs’ claim, as canvassed by Mr. Sen, supported by Mr. DeVitre for Defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 11, is hopelessly time-barred; and that, in any case, the suit is not maintainable, as the claim lies exclusively within the jurisdictional d