C.L. SONI, J.

1. This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the original plaintiffs whose suit was dismissed by the trial court and confirmed by the first appellate court on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit filed by the plaintiffs as also the suit is not maintainable having been filed without prior permission of the Charity Commissioner.

2. The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the plaintiffs are trustees of the registered trust known as Haribhai Naranbhai Trust. Under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act [herein after referred to as the Act for brevity], the property of the trust vest in the trustees and the trustees are entitled to deal with the trust property. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are trying to deal with the trust property by saying that they have become trustees of the trust property by virtue of the decision taken in the meeting dated 14.3.93. Defendants have applied before the Assistant Charity Commissioner to enter their names as trustees but the Assistant Charity Commissioner has not decided such issue and till such decision is taken by the Charity Commissioner, trust property could not be said to have vested with the defendants and they can also not be considered as trustees. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants want to sell away the trust property and create third party rights in the trust property though the defendants have no right, title or interest in the property. The plaintiffs have therefore filed the suit for the relief to declare that the defendants have no right, title or authority to deal with the trust property being Final Plot No.20,47,84 and 93 in TP Scheme No. 12 (Adajan) in any manner and also for declaring that the defendants have no right or authority to obstruct or interfere with the administration of trust property in possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with the trust property and/or from making any agreement or creating any third party interest or from permitting anybody to enter upon the trust property or cutting of the grass from the trust property and further restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession over the trust property.

3. The defendants filed written statement at Exh. 12 and stated that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is also stated that the plaintiffs had already resigned as trustee on 11.2.1993. Said resignation was accepted in the meeting of the executive committee on 21.2.1993 and new trustees were elected in the meeting dated 14.3.93 and the defendants have applied to the Assistant Charity Commissioner to enroll the names of the new trustees. That the suit is not maintainable as the permission of the Charity Commissioner was not taken before filing the suit.

4. After filing of the written statement, the defendants filed application Exh. 17 for raising and deciding preliminary issue to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs had filed reply to the said application at Exh. 25 and the learned trial Judge after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that from the pleadings of the plaint, the suit of the plaintiffs is basically for management of the trust property and therefore, the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of the suit. The Court has further held that the suit filed without prior permission of the Charity Commissioner is not maintainable. On the basis of this conclusion, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 7.10.1995.

5. The appellant unsuccessfully carried the matter before the first appellate court by filing Regular Civil Appeal NO.56 of 1995. The learned appellate Judge on the pleadings in the plaint, observed that the plaint itself reveals that the defendant