( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the orders pronounced by the learned single Judge in Appeal from Order No. 99 of 1982, dated 1/02/1984.

( 2 ) THE Charity Commissioner had presented the plaint before the learned extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh on 12/12/1982 in Trust Suit No. 1 of 1979. The prayers asked for in the said suit are as follows:" (A) It be declared that the sale of the suit land dated 28/08/1975 made by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is void inasmuch as it is without consideration and in pursuance of the permission of the Charity Commissioner which is obtained fraudulently. (b) Defendant No. 2 be ordered to hand over possession of the suit land to the trust as he is not entitled to retain the same. (c) Costs of the suit be awarded. "

( 3 ) THE case taken up by the Charity Commissioner in the suit is to the effect that original defendant No. 1, Kamalsha Gulzarsha, happens to be the sole trustee of the Trust registered at No. B-242/junagadh under the Bombay public Trusts Act, 1950. The said Trust owned a piece of land, bearing survey No. 204, situated within the city limits of Junagadh and that defendant no. 1 had submitted necessary application for the previous sanction under sec. 36 of the Act for the sale of the ahovesaid piece of land. The sanction, as prayed for was granted subject to certain conditions and ultimately, the necessary sale deed was executed by the defendant No. I in favour of defendant no. 2. It was the case of the Charity Commissioner that, upon making enquiry on the basis of certain applications received by his office it was noticed that the sanction to sell the property under Sec. 36 of the Act was obtained fraudulently and that the sale was made in violation of the conditions imposed by his Office. According to him, as a matter of fact there was no existing liability against the Trust and that there was no genuine need for the disposal of the Trust property for discharging the liability of the Trust and that the public auction was also not held. It is on these broad facts that the suit of the Charity Commissioner was based praying for the prayers already noticed. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, by his orders dated 18th December, 1981, had come to the conclusion that his Court had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. Therefore, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff- charity Commissioner for the presentation before the proper Court. The abovesaid orders were carried further by filing Appeal from Order No 99 of 1982 before this Court. The learned single Judge has taken the view that the case would be covered within the purview of Sec. 50 of the Act and, therefore, the plaint ought not to have been returned. The abovesaid orders of the learned single Judge are in challenge in the present Letters Patent appeal before us.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel Mr. M. I. Merchant, who appears for Mr. N. D. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the appellant, has urged that the learned single judge has not taken into consideration the provisions contained under Sec. 36 of the Act. According to Mr. Merchant, previous sanction of the Charity commissioner was already obtained and that if the Charity Commissioner was of the opinion that it was not a valid and legal previous sanction, the only course open for the Charity Commissioner was to move the Gujarat Revenue tribunal as it is open for him to do so under Sec. 36 (3) of the Act. The recapitulation made by the learned single Judge in the orders under challenge may be extracted thus :"when we read all the averments made in the plaint from paragraphs 1 to 12, it is clear beyond any doubt that allegations are made regarding practising fraud on the Charity Commissioner for the purpose of obtaining permission under Sec. 36 of the Act and also for selling out the land of the Trust without public auction and thereby openly flouting the direction given by the Charity Commissioner. It is further clear that allega