SHANTILAL KHIMCHAND Vs. MULCHAND DALICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act against the order dated 22nd June 1957 passed by the learned District Judge Broach in Misc. Application No. 14 of 1956 filed before him under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 setting aside the order passed by the charity Commissioner in Change Application No. 181 of 1953.

(2.) A few facts relating to this matter may be stated. On 25th November 1953 a report of a change in the trustees was made to the Assistant Charity Commissioner under section 22 of the Act. That application was contested by those respondents who claimed themselves to be the members of the Broach Jain Sangh having the right to appoint trustees. An enquiry under the provisions of section 22 was started and was transferred to the Deputy Charity Commissioner was held the enquiry with the aid of assessors. On a consideration of the evidence the Deputy Charity Com- missioner held that the old trustees wanted to resign but it was for the Broach Vejalpore Jain Sangh to accept their resignations and to appoint new trustees and that the Ladwa Shrimali Jains who appointed the appli- cants before him as the new trustees had no such power. The Deputy Charity Commissioner also did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the Ladwa Shrimali Jains and the Vejalpore Jain Sangh were an identical body. He therefore rejected the change report and ordered the new trustees to hand over the charge of the trust if taken by them to the old trustees who were to continue the management until validly appointed trustees take over the charge from them. Appeal No. 186 of 1954 was preferred to the Charity Commissioner under section 70 of the Act and it was held therein that the change in the office of the trustees had in fact taken place before the date of the change applica- tion and that as the change had already been effected it must be recorded under section 22 of the Act and that the legality and the validity of the change could not be challenged in proceedings under section 22. Against this decision of the Charity Commissioner an application under section 72 of the Act was preferred before the District Judge Broach who by his order dated 22nd June 1957 allowed the application and set aside the order passed by the Charity Commissioner. It is over this order that the present appeal is preferred before us.

(3.) Mr. A. N. Surti appearing on behalf of the appellants has urged three points before us viz. (1) That the application to the District Judge against the order of the Charity Commissioner was barred by limitation as provided under section 72(1) of the Act.