PANDURANG TATOBA GURAV Vs. NARAYAN BHAU PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. Though the present appeal was admitted as the first appeal, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of (Maqbul Ahmed Miya Girav v. Hydayatulla Baldi), reported in 1993 (1) Bom. C. R. 386 followed by a Division Bench in the case of (Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi v. Leelabai Badrinarayan Kalwar), reported in 1998 (2) Bom. C. R. 744 : 1998 (1) Mh. L. J. 444 and the present appeal being arising from the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge in the appeal under section 72 (1) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "the said Act"), it is necessary to ascertain whether the matter involves any substantial question of law or not, for the purpose of interference by this Court.

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision are that there is a Maruti Devasthan in village Gharniki in Atpadi tahsil of Sangli District which was originally managed by one Bhau Mhadu Gurav and on his demise from 21 September, 1949 the same was managed by his close relations, which included Pandurang Tatoba Gurav, the original appellant herein. The said Pandurang was recognised by then Assist. Judge as the heir of deceased Bhau Gurav and necessary certificate in that regard was issued in his favour and he continued to manage the properties of the said Devasthan which included agricultural land bearing Gat No. 814 admeasuring 8 acres and 16 Rs. situated in village Gharniki. Subsequent thereto the said Pandurang got the trust registered by getting the scheme under section 50-A of the said Act approved and by appointing the appellants including Pandurang as the trustees thereof. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being dissatisfied with the management of the said Trust by the appellants complained to the respondent No. 3 and thereafter, consequent to the enquiry held by the respondent No. 3, the new scheme came to be prepared and approved by the authority under the said Act as a result of which the appellants excluding Pandurang were removed from the membership of the board of the trustees and in their place villagers were sought to be appointed. The number of the trustees was also increased to 9 from 5. Pandurang was allowed to be one of the members of the board of trustees during his life time with specific clause that after his death the vacancy is to be filled by surviving trustees, thereby denying the right of succession in favour of the legal heirs of Pandurang to the membership of the board of trustees. The scheme newly prepared and approved was sought to be challenged by the appellants under section 72 (1) of the said Act before the District Court without any success as the same was rejected by the impugned judgment and order dated 6th August, 1990.

(3.) WHILE assailing the impugned judgment and order as well as that of the respondent No. 3 approving the modified scheme, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the orders below do not disclose justification for restricting the membership of the board of trustees only in favour of Pandurang and denying the right to the legal heirs of Pandurang after his death to continue to be member of the board of trustees as also rejecting the claim of the appellants to continue to be Pujari in the Maruti temple. The entire scheme having been modified without disclosing any justification for the same, it discloses improper exercise of the powers by the authority as well as non-application of mind to the point sought to be raised by the appellants in the course of enquiry before the authority. Attention also has been drawn to the decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in the matter of (Venkataraman v. I. A. Thangappa), reported in A. I. R. 1972 Madras 119. Learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the authority, upon detailed enquiry in the matter, has arrived at the finding about the mis-management of temple by Pandurang and his family members. It is further submitted that the order passed by the respondent No. 3 apparently discloses how the temple was totally neglected and the necessity for changes which have been brought about under the modified scheme.