Trustees of a public religious trust can institute suits without prior consent from the Charity Commissioner under Sections 50 and 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.Heard Mr. S.V.Adwant, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. P.F.Patni, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1. With their consent, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

2. Appellant no.1 is a religious public trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act .

3. Survey No.15 to the extent of 3 acres 6 gunthas, situated at Kesarsingpura, Aurangabad is dedicated to the temple and is a trust property. It is recorded in Schedule I of the register of Public Trust. Appellant/Trust filed Trust Suit No. 4 of 2010 against the defendants therein before the District Court, Aurangabad for cancellation of lease deed, dated 28.3.1973 and for recovery of possession of the trust property. Defendant no.1 caused appearance in the suit and filed its say and written statement. The learned District Judge framed issue of jurisdiction, which was tried as a preliminary issue. Upon hearing the parties, the learned District Judge, Aurangabad has passed an order, dated 8.11.2016 and the suit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Hence, the present appeal.

4. Mr. Adwant, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the suit was filed by the trust itself against the person in possession on the basis of lease. He further submitted that erstwhile trustees have executed a lease in favour of defendants and it was without permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act . Mr. Adwant, learned counsel further submitted that since the trust itself is a plaintiff, therefore, consent as required under Section 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is not at all required.

5. As against this, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submitted that since the suit was filed by the trustees, the permission as contemplated under Sections 50 and 51 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act is required, and therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly decided that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

6. Considering the submissions of both the sides, a very short point arises for my consideration i.e. whether the prior consent of the Charity Commissioner is required to institute the suit ?

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied upon the observations in the case of Vidarbha Kshatriya Mali Shikshan Sanstha, by its President Shri Wasudeorao Dattaji Sonar vs Mahatma Fuley Shikshan Samiti, Amravati, through its President Ruprao Bhimrao Yawale, reported in 1986 Mh.L.J. 773, wherein it is observed that, “ Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act does not contemplate the suit which is to be filed by a person for enforcing his own right. In such a case the suit by a Public Trust for enforcing its civil rights is not barred by Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Such a suit has to be filed in the ordinary forum under the Civil Procedure Code and is not required to be instituted in the Court as defined in Section 2(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The expression, 'court' as defined in Section 2(4) only deals with the suits which are filed under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and has no applicability to suits other than those prescribed thereunder. Suit is not barred by the first proviso to Section 50 of the Act because in its contextual interpretation and read in the light of the substantive provision can only bar a suit which is contemplated by the substantive provision.”

Relying upon the aforesaid observations, the learned counsel for respondent argued that the suit, instituted in the Distric