LAWS(BOM)-1974-12-5

SHAMRAO RAGHUNATH PHADKE Vs. VITHAL VISHWANATH BADVE

Decided On December 04, 1974
SHAMRAO RAGHUNATH PHADKE Appellant
V/S
VITHAL VISHWANATH BADVE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the plaintiffs who sued for a declaration that the suit properties were their an central properties and the defendants have no concern with the said properties and that they be restrained from taking income of the said properties. The defendants are claiming the properties which belonged to Shri Sitaram Deo Mandir of Pandharpur. The suit was decree by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pandharpur on August 31, 1960. That decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed in an appeal filed by the defendants on November 12, 1962 by the Second Extra Assistant Judge, Sholapur, as he found that the suit properties were held by the Assistant Charity Commissioner to be properties of the public trust. Feeling aggrieved by the said decree passed by the learned Assistant Judge the plaintiffs filed the above appeal.

(2.) During the tendency of the above suit an application was filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sholapur which came to be transferred to deputy Charity Commissioner, Bombay. He held that the trust was a public trust and the properties were public trust properties. The said order was confirmed in appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner. Against the said decision an application was filed under section 72(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, and the learned Assistant Judge, Sholapur, who heard the said appeal by his judgment and order dated November 18, 1974, a certified copy of which filed in this Court by the appellant, allowed the application partly and declared that the suit properties were properties of the plaintiffs and not the properties of the trust.

(3.) The above second appeal was pending during the said proceedings under the Bombay Public Trust Act. On October 24, 1969, in Civil Application No. 2950 of 1969 filed in the second appeal, this Court directed the trial Court to nominate receiver and to give directions to the receiver regarding the expenses of cultivation incurred by the defendants.