IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

921 SECOND APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2024 ASHTAVINAYAK PRATISHTHAN LATUR A CHARITABLE TRUST THROUGH ITS SECRETARY RAJESH GHANSHYAMDASJI LATHI VERSUS ROTARY WELFARE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS SO CALLED CHAIRMAN MADHUKAR SHANKARRAO KULKARNI WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7431 OF 2024 IN SA/131/2024 ASHTAVINAYAK PRATISHTHAN LATUR A CHARITABLE TRUST THROUGH ITS SECRETARY RAJESH GHANSHYAMDASJI LATHI VERSUS ROTARY WELFARE SOCIETY THROUGH ITS SO CALLED CHAIRMAN MADHUKAR SHANKARRAO KULKARNI Mr.A.N.Irpatgire, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.P.M.Nagargoje, Advocate for the respondent.

( CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. )

DATE : MAY 8, 2025 PER COURT :

1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. By way of instant appeal u/s 100 of the CPC, a challenge is raised to the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2024 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.123/2022 by upholding the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2022 passed by the 3^rd Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Latur in RCA No.221/2013.

The primary contention of the appellant is that both the Courts below have arrived at findings by ignoring the purport of provisions of Section

36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

2. He submits that ignoring the evidence about joint venture of girls hostel, which becomes clear in view of cross examination of plaintiff, the Courts below have observed that on account of failure to obtain permission in view of Section 36, the Lease Deed / agreement cannot be given effect. He submits that the Courts below have failed to consider the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, which mandated the original plaintiff (respondent) to seek prior permission of the Charity Commissioner before instituting the suit. He also submits that the suit filed by the respondents is barred by limitation and the Courts below have wrongly recorded the findings that the Trustees had filed the suit only after getting the knowledge about lease deed. In this regard, he submits that one of the existing trustees was also trustee earlier and he had full knowledge about the document of lease in between the two trustees.

3. Considering the submissions advanced, few important issues need consideration, particularly the issue about the absence of permission u/s 36 of the Act, issue about absence of prior permission u/s 50 of the Act for institution of the suit and the issue about limitation in filing the suit.

4. In view of this, issue notice on following substantial questions of Law.

[a] Whether the Courts below erred in appreciating the purport of provisions of Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts act in the light of evidence of plaintiff No.1 Madhukar Kulkarni - P.W.No.1 ?

[b] Whether the Courts below erred in appreciating the evidence of P.W.No.1 on the point of joint venture of girls hostel of the plaintiff Trust with the defendant trust ?

[3] Whether the Courts below have arrived at erroneous findings with respect to permission of the Charity Commissioner for institution of suit, as contemplated under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act ?

[4] Whether the findings of the Courts below on the point of suit being barred by limitation are perverse?

[5] Whether the findings of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court suffers from perversity and are arrived at despite lack of foundation in the pleadings ?

5. The notice is made returnable on 25.06.2025. The learned Advocate Mr.Irpatgire waives service of notice on behalf of the sole respondent.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7431 OF 2024

6. This is an application seeking interim relief in the nature of stay to the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned decrees passed by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Courts.

7. In view of the fact that notice on substantial questions of law are issued in the second appeal and considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the respondent/decree holder is executing the decree and he apprehends execution of decree b