CHANNAMALIKARJUNA SHIVACHARYA GURU PAWADAYYASWAMI H1REMATH NAGATHAN TALUK BIJAPUR DISTRICT Vs. R S PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the public trust known as 'hiremati of nagthan' which was registered under the Bombay public Trust Act, 1950 ('the act', for short) earlier had Sri channamalikarjuna shivacharya guru pawadayya swami hiremath, as its sole trustee. He fell seriously ill and died on 21-5-1979, after executing a vyavastha patra (settlement deed) on 17-5-1979, naming 5 persons to be the managers of the trust after his death. He authorised the said 5 persons to nominate the successor. Accordingly, entries were made in the register showing the names of the said 5 persons as being the managers of the trust on 20-7-1979 by the assistant charity commissioner. Subsequently, four of them made a report intimating the assistant charity commissioner that the first appellant herein was installed as the matadhipathi on 30-7-1979 and requested the assistant charity commissioner to make change report in the properties of the trust.

(2.) public notice was issued by the assistant charity commissioner calling for objections and the respondents filed their objections to the proposed action. The assistant charity commissioner rejected the report effecting changes in the register so far as the entries relating to the matadhipathi on 30-9-1981. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellate preferred an appeal before the charity commissioner which was allowed on 13-8-1982 under Section 70 of the act in miscellaneous appeal No. 13 of 1981. The respondents made an application under Section 72 before the additional district judge, bijapur in miscellaneous application No. 97 of 1982 against the order of the charity commissioner. The learned judge set aside the order of the charity commissioner, observing that it is open to the parties to get the question of succession to the math agitated before the competent civil court which is now in question in this appeal before this court.

(3.) Sri visweswara, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the entries regarding the 5 persons in the management of the trust became final as it was not questioned by anyone, and as the persons in the management, they were entitled to report the change of the matadhipathi under Section 22 of the act and the charity commissioner was justified in making the changes in the register, after following the due procedure laid down under Section 22 of the act. He contends that the scope of enquiry under Section 22 is limited and it is not open to the authorities under the act to go into the legality of the installation of the matadhipathi and therefore the learned judge was in error in setting aside the order of the charity commissioner and driving the appellants to the civil suit.