CHARITY COMMISSIONER GUJARAT Vs. NAGARBHAI MADHAVDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 8-1-1993 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 30 of 1992 under Sec. 56(A)(1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act.

(2.) The Trust known as 'Sidheshwar Mahadev' at village Pirojpur is a public trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'). Mr. Mohanlal Pranshanker Vyas, Mr. Kuberlal Jetharam Vyas and Mr. Ramnarayan Maganlal Vyas were appointed trustees of the said Trust. They submitted their resignations as trustees and thereafter village people appointed new trustees. It has also been decided by the village people to appoint new trustees by the village people themselves. The change report was submitted before the Charity Commissioner and by order dated 23-4-1992 the Charity Commissioner directed the trust to obtain approval from the Court. In view of such a direction, the trust moved an application being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 30 of 1992 before the learned District Judge at Mehsana, who transferred the matter to learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana. No written objections were filed by the learned Charity Commissioner. One witness Mr. Nagarbhai Madhavdas was examined at Exh. 12 before the learned Assistant Judge. In his evidence he has stated that village people appointed new trustees in place of trustees who resigned, by changing the method for appointing trustees as well as Pujari and that a change report to that effect was submitted to the office of Charity Commissioner. The learned Assistant Judge found that when the village people unanimously decided to change the method of appointing trustees and Pujari there was no impediment in allowing the application. He, therefore, allowed the application, approving the change report. The learned Charity Commissioner has challenged said order in this revision application. * against the order dated 8-1-1993 passed by Asstt. Judge, Mehsana in Miscellaneous Civil Application No, 30 of 1992.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Arun T. Thakore, learned Advocate for the petitioner-Charity Commissioner and Mr. N. K. Pahwa, learned Advocate for Mr. P. M. Thakkar, learned Advocate for the respondents. A very important and salient feature about the appointment of trustees has been brought to the notice of this Court and that has not been in dispute. As per the registration of the trust, the mode of succession to the trusteeship was by way of inheritance. It is not the case of any of the parties that there is no one available from the side of the trustee/s who was/were appointed as such by way of inheritance mode of succession to the trusteeship It is, therefore clear that if hereditary mode of succession to the trusteeship, which is only mode of succession, is required to be changed, that prima facie would not amount to a change in the names of the trustees simplicitor, which can be recorded by way of granting change report. If the mode of succession to the trusteeship is required to be altered, it is plain to find that that could not be done by recourse to Sec. 56(A)(1) of the Act, which reads :