DEV CHAVATA Vs. GANESH MAHADEO DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' first appeal against the judgment and decree dated August 5, 1961, passed by the District Judge at Kolhapur dismissing the plaintiffs' suit under Section 50 of the Bombay trusts Act, 1950. The plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of Shri Dev Chavata of Tambulwadi in Chandgaa Taluka for recovery of possession from defendant No. 1 of an agricultural land tearing survey No. 77-/2 admeasuring 26 gunthas, assessed at Rs. 3. 48 np. , relying on a decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated November 5, 1954. A certified copy of the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner is at Ex. 86. The said decision was given by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under Section 79 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act on an application made by plaintiff No. 1 for a certificate to declare that the suit land was the Devasthan Inam land of Shri Dey Chavata. The certificate given by the Assistant Charity Commissioner is at Ex. 106.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 (respondent No. 1) admitted in his written statement that he had appeared before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and contended that the suit land was his private property but the Assistant Charity Commissioner declared that the suit land was the Devasthan Inam land of Shri Dev Chavata. The second defendant the Charity Commissioner, supported the plaintiffs' claim. But defendant No. 1 resisted the suit on the ground that he and his ancestors were in possession of the suit land for more than 60 years as owners adversely to the deity, and hence the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Judge upheld this contention and dismissed the suit, though he found the title of the Deity to the suit land established.

(3.) THE learned Judge, in my opinion, was quite right in holding that the decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner that the suit land belonged to the deity was final and conclusive under Section 79 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. That decision was given after hearing the objections of defendant No. 1 and under Section 79 read with Section 80, the Assistant Charity Commissioner had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the suit land belonged to the deity. The decision is binding on respondent No. 1 and cannot be challenged by him before me in this appeal,