YAMUNABAI DHANKUDE Vs. RAOSAHEB MOHANLAL CHIMANLAL MANIYAR TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the earlier order dated 27 th September, 2011, since the Appeal involved a short question of law, it was directed to be heard for final hearing. Accordingly, I have heard the learned Advocates finally on 4 th October, 2011 and the Judgment was reserved.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and are very brief. The Respondents filed RCS No.1002 of 1998 against the Appellants in the Civil Court at Pune for permanent injunction from disturbing the possession of the Plaintiffs Trustees over the suit property. The averments shows that the Plaintiffs are the trustees of a Public Charitable Trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The suit sought relief against Defendants on the ground that the Defendants were unlawfully trying to dispossess the Plaintiffs and were disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs trust, through its trustees.

(3.) In this suit, an application for rejection of plaint was filed by the Defendants below Exhibit 26 on the ground that since the trust is registered under Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, it was essential to obtain permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the said Act and since said permission was not obtained, plaint was liable to be rejected. Relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Gollaleshwar Dev and others v/s. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math and others, 1986 AIR(SC) 231 and the Judgment of Single Judge of this Court in the case of Leelavati w/o. Vasantrao Pingle and another v/s. Dattatraya D. Kavishar and other, 1988 2 BCR 429, the learned Joint C. J. J. D. Pune had allowed the said application and rejected the plaint. Aggrieved by Judgment and Order of rejection of plaint which amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the original Plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No.1 of 1998. By the impugned Judgment and Order dated 15 th September, 1999 the learned 3 rd ADJ, Pune allowed the said appeal, order of rejection of plaint was set aside and the application Exhibit 26 was dismissed.