PARVEZ RUSTAMJI BHARDA Vs. NAVROJJI SORABJI TAMBOLY DECD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This appeal is instituted by the appellant against summary dismissal of First Appeal No. 7389 of 1998 by the learned single Judge on December 9, 1999.

(2.) . The case of the appellant is that there is a trust known as "Navsari Malesar Behdin Anjuman Trust", at Navsari registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). According to the appellant, before 1950 Act came into force, there was Parsi Public Trust Act and the trust was registered under that Act. After 1950 Act came into force, it was registered under the present Act. It is also the case of the appellant that Change Report No. 722 of 1984 was filed for addition of two members in the Managing Committee of the trust. The allegation of the appellant is that without following the procedure prescribed under the Act, Rules and the trust deed, the Change Report was granted by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on February 25, 1987. An appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Joint Charity Commissioner on May 4, 1989. Being aggrieved by the said order. Misc. Civil Application No. 160 of 1989 was filed by the appellant under Sec. 72 of the Act in the District Court which came up for hearing before the Assistant Judge, Valsad, who by his judgment and order dated September 30, 1998 dismissed the application. Since the appellant was not satisfied by the order passed by the Assistant Judge, he preferred First Appeal No. 7389 of 1998 which was summarily dismissed by the learned single Judge on December 9, 1999. Learned single Judge, in the impugned order, observed that the authorities below after appreciating the facts and circumstances, recorded a finding that respondent No.l was entitled to become a member of the trust and of the Managing Committee and there was no reason to interfere with the said finding based on evidence. It is this order which is challenged by the appellant in the present L.P.A.

(3.) . When Mr. Bharda for the appellant started arguing the matter on merits, we posed a question to him as to how L.P.A., would be maintainable. He submitted that the order passed by the learned single Judge was in F.A., and hence, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of Bombay as applicable to this Court, an intra-Court appeal against a "judgment" rendered by a single Judge in F.A., would be competent and accordingly, the appellant has filed the present L.P.A., which is required to be decided on merits.