JUDGMENT :

A.M. Dhavale, J.

This is an appeal by the original defendants in R.C.S. No.40 of 1984 in the Court at Beed. The suit of the trust for possession of agricultural land on the basis of title was dismissed by the trial court. In the first appeal R.C.A. No. 233 of 1986, the 3rd Additional District Judge, Beed reversed the judgment, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal.

2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. The following substantial questions of law were framed :

i. Whether the suit filed by a disciple on behalf of the Trust in the court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, for enforcement of civil rights of the trust is maintainable?

Ans. In the affirmative, as it is filed by trustee with authorization from all trustees.

ii. Whether the first appellate Court erred in reversing the finding of learned trial Judge on the point of claim of defendants for adverse possession?

Ans. In the negative.

iii. Whether the permission of Charity Commissioner was necessary to be obtained by a person other than the trustee for filing a suit?

Ans. In the negative.

iv. Whether it was necessary to frame issue as to whether the defendant was agriculture tenant/protected tenant/deemed purchaser and refer the same to the competent authority under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act?

Ans. In the affirmative. It was necessary to frame the issue.

3. The trial court had dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership. Whereas, the appellate court held that the ownership was proved.

4. I find that this is a suit by the trust to prosecute its civil rights and in such matters, ordinarily the Civil Court will have jurisdiction and no permission of the Charity Commissioner is necessary if the suit is filed by the trustees.

5. The pleadings and findings on record disclose that though the plaint shows that it was filed by a disciple, in fact, the suit was filed by one of the trustees with authorization from all the trustees. Since the suit is filed by the trust, all the trustees are not necessary parties. All the trustees will be necessary only in a suit against the trust.

6. The facts also indicate that the defendants were claiming tenancy through Bhagwatbuwa who was one of the Mahants of the trust. A tenant cannot challenge the ownership of the landlord. The ownership dispute between the trust and the nephew of the founder of the trust Bankat Swami has been heard and the ownership of the trust has been confirmed up to the High Court. The defendants being tenants, they cannot challenge the ownership.

7. However, both the courts below erred in not considering the defence raised by the defendants in proper perspective. The defendants have stated as follows:

That the suit land was taken on lease by the defendant from Bhagwatbuwa since the year 1953-1954. That the suit land was attached by Tahsil in the year 1962 and was auctioned for two years and defendant was only the person who took the Lawani. After two years the Tahsil Beed handed over the possession of the suit land to the defendant and since then the defendant is in continuous possession as an owner. That the defendant was in possession of the suit land as a tenant since 1953-1954 and since 1964-1965 he is in possession of the suit land as an owner. There are several Revenue entries in his name in the revenue record since 1953-1965 as a person in cultivation.

8. I find no pleadings and evidence on the basis of which the defendants can claim ownership. But there was a specific plea of tenancy. This plea of tenancy is supported by documents which disclose that the defendant was in possession of the suit land since 1955-1956. There is pahani patrak Exhibit 50 and 7 X 12 extract Exhibits 48 and 49 disclosing the possession of Daiwan Annasaheb Tandale-defendant no.1. He has paid lawani charges and has also filed receipts for paying cess. There was prima facie material to consider the defence raised by the defendant about his agricultural tenancy. In fact, the le