P. N. BHAGWATI, T. U. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters P tent Appeal raises a short but very interesting question of law relating to the maintainability of an appeal against an order made by a single Judge of the High Court in appeal against a decision of the District Court under sec. 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950. It is not necessary for the purpose of determination of this question to state the facts giving rise to this Letter Patent Appeal in detail but it would be sufficient if we briefly set out a few of the relevant facts as that would help to understand how the question arises for consideration. There is a trust known as Dholeshwar Mahadev Trust which consists inter alia of a temple situate in Cambay and it was registered as a public trust by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 10th November 1953 on an application made by one Motigar Lalgar Gosai. Motigar Lalgar Gosai having died on 21st October 1958 the appellants who are his heirs filed a change report under sec. 22 sub-sec. (1) claiming that their names be entered in the Register as trustees in place of Motigar Lalgar Gosai as they were his heirs. This change report was accepted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner by an order dated 6th March 1959 and the entry in the register was amended by showing the appellants as trustees of the public trust. Now it appears that when Motigar Lalgar Gosai made an application for registering the trust as a public trust he did not disclose to the Assistant Charity Commissioner that he had executed a deed of trust dated 30th November 1946 appointing respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as trustees and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were therefore not shown in the register as trustees of the trust. Soon after the death of Motigar Lalgar Gosai however the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 realised that their names were not entered in the register as trustees and they therefore made an application under sec. 22a claiming that their names should be entered as trustees in plate of Motigar Lalgar Gosai. This application was made subsequent to the date of the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner accepting the change report of the appellants. The Assistant Charity Commissioner on receiving this application held an inquiry and found that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were trustees of the trust under the trust deed dated 30th November 1946 and they were entitled to have their names entered in the register as trustees and he accordingly by an order dated 29th June 1959 directed that the names of the appellants be deleted from the register and the names of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 be entered as trustees. The appellants) being aggrieved by this order made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner preferred an appeal to the Charity Commissioner. The main ground on which the appeal was based was that the Assistant Charity Commissioner had no jurisdiction to delete the names of the appellants and to substitute the names of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as trustees in the register under sec. 22a that being the section under which the Assistant Charity Commissioner acted in making his order dated 29th June 1959 and the order dated 29th June 1959 made by him was therefore without jurisdiction. The argument of the appellants was that if respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were aggrieved by the order dated 6th March 1959 made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner accepting the change report of the appellants and entering the names of the appellants as trustees in the register under sec. 22 their remedy if at all was to prefer an appeal or revision application but they could not seek to set aside that order by inviting the Assistant Charity Commissioner to act under sec. 22athe Charity Commissioner who heard the appeal was impressed by this contention of the appellants and he set aside the order dated 29th June 1959 made by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 thereupon made an application being Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 1962 in the District Court Kaira under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document