CHARITY COMMISSIONER GUJARAT STATE Vs. RUSTOM FARAMROZ DABOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By the last Will and Testament of one Rustamji Khurshedji Bamji of Navsari dated 24th August 1910 a public trust was created called Rustamji Khurshedji Bamji Muktad Trust Fund Navsari. The respondents herein are the trustees under the said Will. The respondent-trustees executed a deed of conveyance in respect of four buildings bearing Municipal Nos. 287 287 287 and 288 of S. No. 91 of Tika No. 13/2 situate near Golwad Naka in the town of Navsari to the Navsari Municipality on January 24 1977 for a sum of Rs. 40 0 appears that the respondent-trustees had applied on 22nd March 1976 before the Charity Commissioner Ahmedabad for according sanction to the proposed sale. The Charity Commissioner was of the opinion that the Will under which the trust was settled did not empower the trustees to sell the trust properties and therefore advised the trustees to obtain necessary directions in the matter by approaching the competent Court. The respondent-trustees therefore by their application approached the District Judge of Valsad at Navsari for necessary directions in the matter under sec. 56A of the Bombay Public Trust Act. The learned District Judge while giving directions sought for also granted the sanction to the transaction of sale in question since the Charity Commissioner also happened to be before the Court in pursuance of the notice issued on the application of the respondent-trustees seeking the directions in the matter. The granted permission to the respondentrustees to sell the properties in question to the Navsari Municipality on the condition that Navsari Municipality pays Rs. 40 0 as the sale price and on further condition that the said Municipality shall name the school as Bai Ayabai Rustamji Khurshedji Bamji Girls School and the trustees were directed to invest the sale proceeds in the approved securities or with any Nationalised Banks. The Charity Commissioner being aggrieved by this order has come in revision before me.

(2.) The grievance of the Charity Commissioner is that the Court had he jurisdiction power or authority to accord sanction to the sale transaction in question since it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner under sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and secondly because the respondent-trustees had sought for the directions of the Court only in the matter of power of the trustees. I am of the opinion that this grievance is justified. Sec. 56A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act empowers the trustees to apply for directions and the material part so far as relevant for the purpose of this revision reads as under:

(3.) The result therefore is that this revision application is allowed and the order of the District Court is modified so as to read that the respondent-trustees will have the power to effect the transfer of the property in question by sale subject to the sanction if accorded by the Charity Commissioner under sec. 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The order of the District Judge is therefore modified accordingly and Rule is made absolute accordingly with the direction that the costs of the Charity Commissioner will come out of the estate. Application allowed.