Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S. Jawalkar, J.
Dr. Kiran Ajaykumar Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Vasant Madhavrao Peshwe - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 471/2008
Decided On : 21-02-2023
PUBLIC TRUST - BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT - Sections 2(10), 36, 70, 72, 73, 73-A - The court discussed the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, particularly focusing on the rights of interested persons to join proceedings and the implications of abatement. It interpreted Section 73-A as empowering the court to add parties to ensure effective adjudication, emphasizing that the inquiry should not be thwarted by technicalities such as abatement. The court concluded that the appellant, as a member of the trust, had the right to represent her deceased father's interests, thereby influencing the decision to allow her application to join the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of her applications to substitute her deceased father in proceedings related to a public trust, alleging manipulation of trust records and improper elections by other trustees. The case involved multiple appeals and applications concerning the management and elections of the trust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Judge erred in rejecting the appellant's applications to join the proceedings. It held that the appellant, being a member of the trust, had the right to represent her deceased father's interests and that the inquiry should continue despite his death.
Issues: Whether the appellant could be permitted to represent the interests of her deceased father in the public trust proceedings and whether the applications were subject to abatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act allow interested persons to join proceedings, and the concept of abatement does not apply in the context of public trust inquiries. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that inquiries are not hindered by technicalities and that the rights of interested parties must be upheld.
Final Decision: The appeals were partly allowed, and the common order rejecting the appellant's applications to join the proceedings was set aside. The District Judge was directed to reconsider the applications in light of the court's observations.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard both the parties at length.
2. The present appeals are filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by District Judge No.1, Yavatmal in M.J.C. No.20/1999 and MJC No.21/1999 decided on 04/12/2008 dismissing the M.J.C. as abated arising out of judgment passed in Revision No.22/1997 decided on 30/01/1999 by Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur arising out of order dtd. 12/07/1978 passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal in Appeal No.59/1997 under Sec. 70 passed by Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur arising out of common order passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Yavatmal in Inquiry Case No.143/1994 and 773/1994 decided on 26/08/1997.
3. This Court framed substantial question of law on 13/03/2009 which is as follows:
<WXY>"Whether the appellant could have been permitted to come on record to represent the interest of other group in Public Trust?"</WXY>
4. Being two second appeals filed challenging common order, Second Appeal No.471/2008 is taken as lead appeal. The present appeal is filed that Vidya Prasarak Mandal which was established by grandfather of appellant and on the donation amount of Amolakchand Mahavidyalaya, Yavatmal was started by a Trust. The Trust is originally registered as society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and therefore by deeming fiction under Sec. 2, Sub-sec. 13 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, it came to be registered by a Trust. The father of appellant was admittedly member of the Managing Committee, who admitted late Jawaharlalji Darda as one of the Trustee. It is alleged by the father of appellant that in order to grab the management of the Trust late Jawaharlalji Darda, manipulated records of the Trust by showing resolution dtd. 19/04/1971 whereby 10 persons were admitted as members. It is further contention that the said proceedings book merely bears signature of late Jawaharlalji Darda alone and no other Trustees have signed the same. By keeping father of the appellant Satyanarayan Bhoot in dark, elections were taken by showing several elections by writing different proceeding books and got the change report allowed vide order dtd. 12/07/1978. Without informing to all members, the meeting was conducted and late Jawaharlal Darda wad declared as elected. There was permission granted by the Charity Commissioner under Sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act to sale the Trust property, however, sanction was granted for a period of six months only vide order dtd. 22/01/1971. Inspite of this specific order, the sale-deed came to be executed on 14/10/1971. The amount is also not deposited as per the direction of the Court. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 tried to create interest in the said Trust property. The petitioner filed an application before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was registered as Trust Appeal No.02/1995. He also filed an application for addition of parties under Sec. 71-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act. During the pendency of that application, the respondents have passed one resolution and proposed to purchase the land involved in dispute by paying Rs.26,89,108.00.
5. In view of said resolution dtd. 22/03/1986, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the proposed plaint claiming relief of injunction directing the respondents not to purchase the said land since the title of the said land did not pass to the respondent No.3. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed that appeal therefore, Writ Petition No.1435/1998 came to be filed wherein this Court passed the order of status-quo protecting the above property of Trust from being sold for repayment of loan. When father of the appellant Satyanarayan Bhoot came to know about order passed on various change reports, he filed Revision Application bearing Revision No.22/1997 against the order dtd. 12/07/1978 and also filed Appeal No.59/1997 against common order passed in Inquiry Case No.143/1994 and 773/1994 decided by Assistant Charity Commissioner vide order dtd. 26/0
The court affirmed that interested persons in public trust matters have the right to join proceedings, and the concept of abatement does not apply, ensuring that inquiries can continue effectively.
The inquiry held by Deputy or Charity Commissioner under Section 19 is by no means an administrative or an executive inquiry The rules framed under the Act called the Bombay Public Trusts Rules 1951 ....
Section 2(13) of the Trusts Act when the petitioner Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and the same is registered for charitable purposes, it is deemed to be a charitable Trus....
The court established that the Charity Commissioner has the authority to examine the legality of membership and the validity of meetings under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, and that change....
The removal of a member from a Trust results in the loss of the right to intervene in related proceedings, as demonstrated in the absence of a demonstrated interest in a loan sanction application und....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of the law. The court emphasized that an orde....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
