A suit filed by a public trust to enforce its own civil right is not barred by section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and can be maintained in the ordinary forum provided for the same.

Headnote:
PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT - JURISDICTION - SECTION 50 - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - MAINTAINABILITY - A suit filed by a public trust to enforce its own civil right is not barred by section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and can be maintained in the ordinary forum provided for the same.
Fact of the Case:

A public trust filed a suit against another public trust to restrain it from interfering with its right to run school classes in the suit premises. The defendant contended that the suit was not maintainable without the permission of the Charity Commissioner under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that section 50 of the Act does not contemplate a suit which is to be filed by a person for enforcing his own right, and therefore, such a suit cannot be barred by the first proviso to section 50 of the Act.
Issues: Whether a suit filed by a public trust to enforce its own civil right is barred by section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 50 of the Act created and regulated a right to institute a suit by the Charity Commissioner or by the two or more persons interested in the trust, in the supplementary statutory provisions without defeasance of the right of the manager or a trustee or a shebait of an idol to bring a suit in the name of idol to recover the property of the trust in the usual way.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the defendant and held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable.

JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.: - This is a revision by the defendant against the order of the learned trial Court holding that it has jurisdiction to proceed with the suit filed by the non-applicant plaintiff.

Briefly, the facts are that the non-applicant plaintiff is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Similarly, the defendant is also a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. There was an agreement between the parties arrived at on 1-12-1970, according to which, the plaintiff trust was allowed to conduct school classes in some of the rooms in a building belonging to the defendant. It was agreed to between the parties that after the academic session is over, the plaintiff should hand over the class rooms to the defendant for being let out for the marriage or some other functions so as to enable it to get income from the same. However, it was further agreed that after the summer vacation is over, the rooks should be handed over back to the plaintiff for running the school classes. According to the plaintiff, it was the tenant of the suit premise although the defendant disputed it.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that after the summer vacation of 1980, the defendant did not hand over the suit premises to the plaintiff for running the school classes, although as per the agreement it was entitled to get them. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the instant suit against the defendant to restrain it from interfering with its right to run the school classes in the suit premises till the summer vacation. The defendant filed its written statement. According to the defendant the licence of the plaintiff was terminated from the summer vacation of 1980 and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to claim any injunction against it. It was also urged that in view of the provisions of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (for short the Act) the instant suit was not maintainable without the permission of the Charity Commission. Another objection raised in the suit was that it was bad for non-joinder as per section 51(3) of the Act was not joined as a party in the suit.

3. After the suit was filed, the plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction. An ex parte temporary injunction was also granted to the plaintiff. The defendant moved an application under section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Court and the maintainability of the suit. The learned trial Court framed the said issue in the light of the provisions of section 50 of the Act. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial Court negatived the contention of the defendant that the instant suit was not maintainable and that the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed with the same. Being aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant revision in this Court.

3-A. The learned Counsel for the defendant has argued before me that the instant suit is covered by Clauses (iv) and (p) of section 50 of the Act. As such, according to him, it was necessary for the plaintiff to obtain permission of the Charity Commissioner before filing the instant suit in the absence of which the instant suit was not maintainable. After examining the provisions of section 50 of the Act, it is clear that the instant suit does fall within the subject-matter covered by Clauses (iv) and (p) of section 50 of the Act. However, the question to be considered is whether it is necessary for a person who is enforcing his civil rights to obtain permission of the Charity Commissioner before filing the suit. Examining section 50 of the Act, it would be clear that in regard to any of the matters provided in the said section, the Charity Commissioner or any two or more persons having interest, with the permission of the Charity Commissioner, can file a suit whether contentions or not in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document