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 domain of the Commissioner of Charities (“Charity Commissioner”). I have considered the arguments on both sides, and the material placed before me. This has not been easy and I have found myself returning to the material repeatedly after arguments closed. Finally, I have been unable to find for the contesting Defendants. Their submissions seem to me to be not only inequitable, but the reading of the law those Defendants commend seems to me to be one that is unintended by the statute and more than likely to result in the gravest of imbalances. As we shall see, had the parties’ positions been reversed, the interpretation canvassed by Mr. Seervai and Mr. Andhyarujina would have worked against them — a civil court’s jurisdiction would not then have been ousted. I believe it is unreasonable to interpret a jurisdiction-ousting statute in so selective a manner.

B. FACTS

2. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 (the “Gokal Trust” and the “SK Foundation” respectively; together, “the two Plaintiff Trusts”) are both public charitable trusts registered under the MPTA. The Gokal Trust was set up in 1967 and the SK Foundation in 1982. The 3rd Plaintiff is a trustee of both Trusts. The other Trustees are Defendants Nos. 6 to 11. Defendant No.10, Shishir Diwanji, is a solicitor of this Court and a partner at M/s Desai & Diwanji.

3. The 1st Defendant (“Contrex”) is a private limited company. Defendants Nos. 6 to 9 are its directors. The dispute is about the ownership of and title to 100 shares of Contrex held by one Ramanlal Gokal (“Ramanlal”), who died on 22nd March 2007.

4. Ramanlal had four brothers: Arun, since deceased; Defendant No. 6 (“Ravindra”), Defendant No.8 (“Ashok”) and Defendant No.9 (“Kishore”), all sons of one Jagjivan Gokal. Defendants Nos. 7 and 11 (“Nakul” and “Nayan”) are Arun Gokal’s sons. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 (“Mukesh” and “Bharat” respectively) are Ramanlal’s sons.

5. On 26th June 2006, Ashok Gokal and his wife Sudha transferred 50 shares they then held in Contrex to Ramanlal and Mukesh. Ramanlal’s name was first; Mukesh’s second. On the same day, Kishore Gokal and his wife Panna transferred another 50 shares to Ramanlal and Bharat, again held so that Ramanlal’s was the first name and Bharat’s the second. Ramanlal paid the entire consideration (Rs.5,000 per transaction).

6. Ramanlal died on 22nd March 2007. He left a Will dated 25th January 2005 [Plaint, Ex. “H” pp. 118–143 ] and a Codicil dated 28th June 2006. [Plaint, Ex. “I” pp. 144–152.] He appointed Defendant Nos. 4 (“Hemraj Asher”), Defendant No. 5 (“Prashant Asher”; together, “the Ashers”), Ashok (Defendant No.8) and Kishore (Defendant No.9) as his Executors. Ashok sought probate in Testamentary Petition No. 733 of 2007. Mukesh and Bharat consented; they filed consent Affidavits dated 7th September 2007 a