SAIKH HUSENBI JANSAHEB Vs. SAYYAD LATIF SAYYAD IMAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regular Civil Suit No. 830 of 1975 was filed by the present two respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Ahmednagar against the petitioners herein for ejectment of a certain piece of land located in Survey No. 64, in cantonment area within the city limits of Ahmednagar. The said suit also pertains to recovery of rental arrears commencing from October 1, 1972.

(2.) The suit obviously proceeded for sometime though on account of certain developments the further progress came to be arrested. The petitioners who are the defendants contested the suit on all counts, the foremost of which was that they questioned the title of the respondents-plaintiffs to the suit property and further made a specific contention that the said property belongs to a public trust which is known and styled as Shri Bava Bengali Dargha of Ahmednagar and, therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs had no authority or right to file the said suit. Relevant documents in support of, their plea about the suit property belonging to the trust were also tendered before the Court. The other contentions pertained to the contest on the other part of the pleadings including the denial of rental arrears and the necessity for eviction with which we are, however, not much concerned in these proceedings.

(3.) We may, therefore, skip over on all other features and can directly go to the development that occurred in the year 1980. By Ex. 41 dated January 9, 1980 the petitioners herein in consonance with the written statement applied to the trial Court that the Charity Commissioner was a necessary party as per the provisions contained in section 56-B of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and in the absence of such necessary party the liable suit to be dismissed. A notice came to be issued to the plaintiffs in response to which the plaintiffs put in their say at Ex. 42 on January 22,1980 refuting these contentions and maintaining that the Charity Commissioner was not a necessary party at all. However, a notice came to be issued to the Charity Commissioner in response to which the Charity Commissioner filed the say which is styled as written statement on September 10, 1980 which is at Ex. 64 under which he denied the allegations of the plaintiffs specifically about the plaintiffs title. It is on January 13, 1981 that a formal order came to be recorded by the learned Judge by which he directed to implead the Charity Commissioner as a co-defendant and the plaintiff was directed to amend the plaint accordingly.