Consent from the Charity Commissioner is required for lawsuits involving public trust properties, asserting the need for statutory compliance in such matters.

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Damle, learned Senior Advocate for Plaintiffs and Mr. Sawant, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant.

2. This Application is filed by Defendant for rejection of the Suit plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’)on the ground that suit is barred under Section 80 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short ‘MPT Act’) for Plaintiffs having failed to comply with the statutory and mandatory provisions of Section 50 and 51 thereof before institution of the Suit proceedings. Parties are referred to as Plaintiffs and Defendant for convenience.

3. Briefly stated, Plaintiff No.1 is a Public Trust amenable to the provisions of the MPT Act. Plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the present Trustees of Plaintiff No.1 - Trust. Suit is filed on 19.12.2024 for recovery of Rs.17,20,88,896/- from Defendant who according to Plaintiffs’ own case as pleaded in the Suit plaint was a permanent Trustee of Plaintiff No.1 - Trust from the year 2001 till 14.12.2023. The recovery of the above amount in the Suit proceedings is sought towards compensation for use by Defendant one Flat No.7 admeasuring 2849.66 sq. ft. on the 12^th floor of Plaintiff No.1- Trust’s hospital building as his residence from January 2007 to April 2015 and for use of office admeasuring 360 sq. ft. on the 3^rd floor, A - Wing of Plaintiff No.1 - Trust’s hospital building from January 2007 to January 2009 (for short "the suit properties"). Suit seeks recovery of proceeds due to the Trust for me of the aforementioned twin properties which are admittedly Trust properties.

4. Mr. Sawant, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant makes the following submissions in support of Application for seeking rejection of the Suit plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC:-

i. He would submit that Plaintiffs have admitted in the Suit plaint that Defendant was a Trustee of Plaintiff No.1 - Trust; that several documents appended as Exhibits to the Suit plaint admit and acknowledge that Defendant was a permanent Trustee of the Trust from 2001 to 2023; that it is not pleaded in the Suit plaint that entry of Defendant in the twin suit properties for the contentious period was without knowledge of Plaintiff No.1 - Trust or its Trustees; that it is not Plaintiffs’ case that Defendant claimed the suit properties adversely to the Trust neither Defendant has ever denied title of Plaintiff No.1 - Trust to the suit properties and most importantly on Plaintiffs’ own showing which is borne out from the averments / pleadings in the Suit plaint and Exhibits annexed thereto, Defendant was admittedly in occupation and possession of the suit properties during the aforesaid tenure in his capacity as Trustee of Plaintiff No.1 – Trust as he was overlooking the affairs of the Trust.

ii. In support of his above submissions he has drawn my attention to the pleadings contained in paragraph Nos.2, 3, 10, 13 and 15 of the suit plaint to contend that Plaintiff No.1 - Trust has clearly admitted in the suit plaint that defendant is an erstwhile (illegal) trustee of the trust, that he was in (illegal) occupation of suit properties from the year 2007 to 2015, that Suit is filed for recovery of compensation with interest from Defendant for illegally occupying the Trust properties during the above period as erstwhile (illegal) Trustee, that according to Plaintiffs the Defendant during this period as Trustee took undue advantage of his position and unlawfully occupied the suit properties; that the erstwhile Board of Trustee did not take any action against Defendant inspite of his such wrongdoing and his failure to vacate the suit propertie