1971 (1) TMI 129 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Pecuniary jurisdiction of the court.
2. Jurisdiction of the court versus the Charity Commissioner.
3. Cause of action against the defendants.
4. Maintainability of the suit without leave of the court under Order 2, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
5. Maintainability of the suit as framed.
6. Validity and service of notices under Section 80 of the CPC.
7. Entitlement of plaintiffs to maintain the suit.
8. Allegation of multifariousness in the suit.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Court:
The court affirmed its pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned judge found in the affirmative on this issue.

2. Jurisdiction of the Court versus the Charity Commissioner:
The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The argument presented by the defendants was that the question of whether a particular property belongs to a Public Trust should be decided by the Charity Commissioner or his Assistant under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and hence the civil court's jurisdiction is barred by Section 80 of the Act. The court examined Sections 18, 19, 79, and 80 of the Act and concluded that the combined effect of Sections 79 and 80 is that the jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly ousted unless the plaintiffs can show that the jurisdiction of the civil court is saved by any other provision contained in the Act. The court found that the present suit could not properly be regarded as falling within the purview of Section 50 of the Act, as the property in question must already be shown to belong to a public trust, which was not the case here.

3. Cause of Action Against the Defendants:
The court found that the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the defendants. The learned judge found in the affirmative on this issue.

4. Maintainability of the Suit Without Leave of the Court Under Order 2, Rule 4 of the CPC:
The court held that the suit was maintainable. The learned judge found in the affirmative on this issue. However, the court later addressed a technical objection regarding the joinder of causes of action without the leave of the court as required under Order 2, Rule 4 of the CPC. The court granted the necessary leave at this stage to overcome this objection.

5. Maintainability of the Suit as Framed:
The court held that the suit as framed was maintainable. The learned judge found in the affirmative on this issue.

6. Validity and Service of Notices Under Section 80 of the CPC:
The court found that the plaintiffs had given valid and proper notices under Section 80 of the CPC, and proper notices had been served on defendants 10 and 11. The learned judge found in the affirmative on this issue.

7. Entitlement of Plaintiffs to Maintain the Suit:
The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit. The learned judge found in the affirmative on this issue.

8. Allegation of Multifariousness in the Suit:
The court found that the suit was not bad for multifariousness. The learned judge found in the negative on this issue.

Additional Points:

Jurisdiction and Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act:
The court examined whether the present suit could be regarded as falling within the purview of Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The court concluded that the present suit could not be considered as such because the property in question was not yet declared to belong to a public trust. The court emphasized that the mandatory provisions of Section 79 require that the question of whether a particular property belongs to a public trust must be decided by the Charity Commissioner or his Assistants, and such a decision is final and conclusive under Section 80.

Stay of Proceedings and Direction to Approach Charity Authorities:
The court decided that it would be unfair to dismiss the suit and drive the plaintiffs to a separate proceeding under Sections 18, 19, and 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act after such a long time. Instead, the court directed that the proceedings of the suit shall be stayed, and the plaintiffs should approach the charity authorities to obtain a declaration under Section 22-A that the properties in suit belong to the Trust made by the late Bhagoji Keer. The court emphasized that the bar under Section 31(1) of the Act is to the suit being heard and decided, not to the suit being instituted.

Final Order:
The civil revision application was partly allowed, and the suit was returned to the trial court for further proceedings and disposal according to law in light of the judgment. The costs of the civil revision application were to abide and follow the final result of the suit.