Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 22832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2292 of 2018

MADANLAL RADHELAL BANSAL & ORS. Versus AGRAWAL SAMAJ TRUST DAHOD & ORS.

Appearance:

ABATED for the Appellant(s) No. 3

CHINTAN K GANDHI(8600) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,4,5

MR N P PANDYA(11241) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,4,5

DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 5,6

FRESH RULE NOT RCVD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1

MR SHAILESH DESAI, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 4

MANAN K PANERI(7959) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

04/08/2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chintan K Gandhi, N P Pandya
For the Respondents: Manan K Paneri, Shailesh Desai

The doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of the same issue between parties (or those litigating under the same title) when the matter has been decided in a former suit, regardless of whether different individual trustees bring separate proceedings, provided the relief and subject matter remain identical.

Headnote:(A) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 50, 56, 56(A), 72(4) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 22 Rule 10 - Res Judicata - Trust property dispute - Suit property originally litigated by a trustee in representative capacity - Abatement of previous appeal filed by trustee - Whether current suit is barred by res judicata - Principle that litigation by one trustee binds other trustees under the same title - Held, issue reached finality upon abatement of previous appeal, barring re-litigation.

Facts of the case:
The appellants (trustees) filed an application under Section 56(A) of the Bombay Public Trust Act alleging that certain immovable properties were purchased by respondents No. 2 and 3 out of trust funds and were held in breach of trust. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the property was personal, and citing res judicata based on a previous Trust Application No. 3 of 2004 which was decided against the trust and became final after the appellant in that case died and the appeal abated.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the principle of res judicata applies as the trustees litigate under the same title. Since the previous litigation had reached finality, the present application, seeking the same reliefs regarding the same properties, is barred. The court refused to suspend the judgment.

Issues: 1. Whether the principle of res judicata applies to the present application given the previous adjudication in Trust Application No. 3 of 2004. 2. Whether the abatement of the earlier appeal prevented the decision from attaining finality.

Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that the doctrine of res judicata, based on public policy, binds parties and their successors who litigate under the same title. Where a trustee loses in a representative capacity, subsequent trustees are barred from re-litigating the same issue once the judgment has attained finality.

Result: First Appeal dismissed.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. By way of this First Appeal filed u/s 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (in short “the Act”), the appellants call in question legality and validity of impugned judgment and order dated 9.5.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. District Judge, Dahod in Trust Application No.1 of 2004 whereby the learned appellate Court dismissed said application.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are referred to as per their original status before the learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The Appellants had filed a petition under Section 56 of the Act, claiming that plot numbers 13, 14, 15, 28, 32 and 33 (in short “suit properties”) had been purchased by Respondent No. 2 out of the trust fund.

3.2 The Appellants sought a direction from the Court to treat the suit properties as immovable properties of the trust, and to initiate proceedings under Section 22 of the Act. The Appellants further sought a direction restraining the Respondents from selling the said immovable properties without obtaining permission under Section 36 of the Act.

3.3 Respondent No. 1, Shri Agarwal Samaj Trust, is stated to be a registered public trust bearing trust registration No.A- 452. The respondent trust is registered under the Act on 7.10.1980.

3.4 The Appellants are stated to be the trustees of Respondent trust, elected pursuant to a general body meeting dated 4th June 1989. Proceedings to register their names in the trust record are stated to be pending vide Change Report No. 471 of 1989.

3.5 Respondent No. 2 and 3 were the erstwhile President and Secretary of Respondent No. 1 Trust. It is alleged that they were in breach of public trust by mismanaging and misusing the trust funds, purchased immovable property in their personal names/capacity.

3.6 In general body meeting dated 4th June 1989, it was decided to restrain Respondent No. 2 and 3 from carrying on any activity injurious to the trust. It is further alleged that although it was the duty of Respondent No. 2 and 3 to place the trust's account of transactions before the general body meeting, they refused to do so.

3.7 It is alleged that under Clause 13(5) of the Constitution of the Trust, any movable or immovable property purchased out of trust funds becomes trust property, but that Respondent No. 2 and 3, in disregard of this clause, purchased the aforesaid immovable property in their personal name and attempted to dispose of the same. On the basis of the pleadings, the Appellants had preferred a petition under Section 56(A) of the Act claiming following relief:-

“1 It is prayed to issue suggestions, instructions as well as directions to the present opponents to carryout procedure under Section 22 to register all the immovable properties mentioned in Annexure- A, the copies of the registered sale deeds of the same are enclosed herewith, as the property of the public trust of Opponent No. 1 in the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nadiad.

2 It is prayed to issue suggestions, instructions as well as directions to the present Opponents No. 2 and 3 that they shall not transfer or get transferred the properties mentioned in Annexure-A in any manner to any person or persons, except with the permission under Section 36 of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Vadodara Division, Vadodara, and they shall not accept any amount or consideration of any kind for the same.

3. It is prayed to issue suggestions, instructions and directions to the present Opponents No. 2 and 3 that they shall hand over the complete details of any financial transactions of the public trust of Opponent No. 1 carried out by them during the period of their tenure as a member/trustee of the managing committee, along with all the records, to Applicant No. 1 and obtain a written receipt for the same.

4. It is prayed to issue permanent directions to the present Opponents No. 2 and 3 that they shall not carryout or make someone to carryout any procedur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document