Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950:
ss. 21(2), 22(3), 26, 36, 41(2), 50, 50A, 51(4) and 79(2) – Suit by respondent/plaintiff (a Trust) – For possession of suit property on the basis of title – Plaintiff ’s case was that the suit property occupied by the predecessors of the defendants/appellants was the property of the presiding deity and was managed by the Trustees in whom it vested for management – Trial court decreed the suit – First appellate court after re-appreciating the evidence reversed the finding of fact recorded by the trial court – High court in second appeal restored the decree passed by the trial court – On appeal, held: The suit property was a trust property – However, procedure envisaged u/ss. 50 and 51 has not been complied with – The questions whether the suit property was the property of the Trust and whether it should be recorded as the property of the Trust was a matter exclusively within the domain of the Charity Commissioner – The property registered as Public Trust and the property occupied by the defendants (suit property) are two different properties – Thus, the suit property is not the property of the plaintiff/Trust – Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The factum of existence of the trust and the trust property is a matter of enquiry for registration envisaged under Section 19 of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. On completion of such enquiry, the competent authority is required to record its findings with the reasons therefor, in terms of Section
20 of the 1950 Act. After complying with the prescribed formalities by the applicant and upon the findings so recorded during the enquiry becoming final, the said authority is obliged to make entries in the register kept for that purpose as per Section 21(1) of the 1950 Act. Such entries become final and conclusive, subject to any change to be recorded. This is predicated under Section 21(2) of the 1950 Act. The Act provides for finality and conclusiveness of the order passed by the Charity Commissioner in Sections 21(2), 22(3), 26, 36, 41(2), 51(4) and 79(2). For filing a suit concerning the public trust, procedure is provided in Section 50 of the Act. Furthermore, Section 80 of the 1950 Act posits a bar of jurisdiction of the civil court to decide or deal with any question which by or under the Act is to be decided or dealt with under the said Act. [Paras 19, 20, 21 and 22][779-C-D; 780-B-D; F-G; 781-A-B]
Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and Others (2005) 10 SCC 760 : [2005] 3 SCR 1037; Dhulabhai and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [1968] 3 SCR 662 – relied on.
2.1 The present suit is a suit for recovery of possession of the subject property on the basis of title claimed therein by the plaintiffs/respondents and being a property of the trust. However, the procedure envisaged under Sections 50 and 51, obviously, has not been complied with. For, such permission has not been produced nor adverted to by the courts below. [Para 22] [784-B-C]
2.2 As the plaintiffs/respondents have claimed title in the suit property, that claim could be answered on the basis of the registration application of the trust, and schedule I regarding the registered properties of the trust. Whether the property is a property of the trust and including the question as to whether it should be so recorded as the property of the trust, is a matter exclusively within the domain of the Charity Commissioner. [Para 23][784-C-E]
2.3 The application for registration of the public trust submitted on 31 st August, 1953 (Exh.63), the subsequent application for registration submitted under the provisions of the 1950 Act dated 13th September, 1961 (Exh.64), the schedule I recording properties of the plaintiff public trust (Exh.43), the enquiry report dated 13 th October, 1954 (Exh.42), and the application for framing of the scheme and the order passed by the Charity Commissioner dated 4th April, 1975 (Exh.46), none of these document mention about “Padukas of Haridas Baba” installed in House No.878 or refer to House No.878 in Circle No.3 being the trust property; but instead, make specific reference to House No.55 in Circle No.3, which is a completely different property. These documents also do not advert to the document dated 23 rd May, 1946 (Exh.41), allegedly creating a Panch Committee in respect of the suit House No.878 in Circle No.3. [Para 25][784-G-H; 785-A-B]
2.4 The finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court regarding the two properties have been brushed aside by the High Court on the specious asumption that it is a case of misdescription of the property in the official register of public trust. That, however, was not the case pleaded much less proved by the plaintiffs/respondents. Such finding recorded by the High Court is a case of manifest error or error apparent, if not perverse. The High Court could not have disregarded the registration application and the description of the house number given in schedule I as the registered property of the public trust, which is House No.55 in Circle No.3. It was for the plaintiffs/respondents to plead and prove that House No.55 shown in schedule I as property of the plaintiff trust is the same as House No.878 in Circle No.3, which description has been given in the plaint as the suit house. Having failed to establish that fact, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, that the respondent Trust had no causal connection with House No.878 in Circle No.3 occupied by the defendants/appellants. Thus, it must necessarily follow that the suit for possession (of House No.878 in Circle No.3) instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents on the basis of title, was devoid of merits. [Para 25][785-B-F]
2.5 Therefore, the Court upholds the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court that the suit house occupied by the defendants/appellants was recorded in the Municipal records during 1947 to 1950 as House No.878 belonging to Haridas Baba and that number was changed to House No.521 in 1973-74 and converted to House No.152 till the institution of the present suit. Further, it is clear that House No.55 in Circle No.3 is entirely a different property. That has been registered as the trust property of the respondent Trust, initially and then continued to be shown as a registered property of the plaintiff trust until the institution of the suit. Such registration by the authorities under the 1950 Act would bind the plaintiffs/respondents. The plaintiffs/respondents have not been able to produce any documentary evidence to establish the fact that the suit house (bearing House No.878 in Circle No.3, which later on became House No.152 in Circle No.3 by the time the suit was instituted), was the property of the plaintiff trust. [Para 26][785-F-H; 786-A-B]
2.6 The High Court adverted to the relevant portion of the written statement to conclude that the defendants/appellants had admitted that the suit property was originally owned by Haridas Baba and that they were in possession in the capacity of caretakers only. Indeed, that admission can be discerned from the written statement of the defendants as well as the oral evidence of DW1. But that admission does not take the matter any further. It is not possible to assume on the basis of that admission that the “suit house” (i.e. House No.878 in Circle No.3) is the property of the plaintiff trust. No documentary evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs/respondents to establish the fact that the suit house bearing House No.878 in Circle No.3 originally owned by Haridas Baba was recorded as the property of the plaintiff trust in the official records. The plea taken by the defendants in the written statement, however, is indicative of the fact that they (defendants/appellants) were occupying House No.878 in Circle No.3, which was originally owned by Haridas Baba and where his Padukas had been installed. The written statement as well as the oral evidence of defendants/appellants clearly refute the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents. [Para 28][786-F-H;787-A-B]
2.7 The High Court has selectively adverted to the portion of the written statement [sub-paras (b) to (d) of paragraph 11 thereof] and not to the other portion of the same paragraph, namely sub-paras (e) to (g) which put across the stand of the defendants/appellants including that the plaintiff trust has no causal connection with the suit house bearing No.878 in Circle No.3. [Para 28][787-C-D]
2.8 The plaintiffs/respondents were primarily obliged to establish their title in the suit house bearing No.878 in Circle No.3 where the Padukas of Saint Haridas Baba have been installed, as being the property of the plaintiff trust. The plaintiffs must succeed or fail on the title they establish; and if they fail to do so, they must fail to get the relief of possession irrespective of title of the defendant in the suit property. In the present case, no tangible evidence regarding title of plaintiff trust in the suit house (House No.878 in Circle No.3) is forthcoming. [Para 29][787-D-F]
Brahma Nand Puri v. Naki Puri [1965] 2 SCR 233; Bajaranglal Shivchandrai Ruia v. Shashikant N. Ruia and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 272 – relied on.
2.9 The High Court has completely misread the admission given by DW 1. Inasmuch as, all it says is that the house number had changed every four years after revaluation. Further, the suit house is in Circle No.3. This admission cannot be of any avail to the plaintiffs much less to hold that the plaintiff trust has title in the suit house bearing House No.878 in Circle No.3. [Para 30][787-F-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.