JOSHI KANTILAL VADILAL Vs. MEHTA GIRDHARLAL DAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJU J.

(2.) THIS is a First Appeal against the order of the District Judge Mehsana dismissing the plaintiffs suit for the removal of defendant No. 3 as trustee of the Sidhnath Mahadeo at Visnagar and for directions relating to accounts. The prayer for directions was ultimately not pressed and there remained only the question of removal of defendant No. 3 as a trustee. The ground alleged in the complaint was that he was of immoral character. It was not alleged in the complaint that there was any breach of public trust on his part. The suit was filed under sec. 50 of the Bombay. Public Trusts Act 1950 That section allows a suit to be filed in three cases:- one of which is when it is alleged that there was a breach of public trust. The second is when a declaration is necessary that a particular property belongs to a public trust or whether a direction is required to recover the possession of such property etc. The third condition precedent is that the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any public trust. If any of these three conditions are satisfied then a suit can be filed and any of the reliefs mentioned in clauses (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) and (h) can be granted by a Court. Relief (a) namely the removal of a trustee goes with one of the three conditions precedent namely a breach of trust. But those reliefs can be granted only provided that the condition precedent mentioned in the first part of section is satisfied. Breach of trust is not alleged in the complaint. Therefore the relief of removal of trustee cannot be granted. Therefore the District Judge was right in dismissing the suit. It is not necessary for me to go into the question of fact relating to the character of the defendant No. 3 when that question does not arise in a suit filed under sec. 50 of the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.