SHANKAR WAMAN THATTE Vs. MADHAV KRISHNA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by one Shankar Waman Thatte, the Appellant before m by which he challenges the validity, legality and justness of the judgment and order dated 3rd May 1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Ratnagiri in Regular Civil Suit No. 8 of 1971 on his file. that suit was filed by the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay - Respondent No.6 herein under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short "the Act"). The suit pertained to a public trust named as "Shree Sansthan Bhargav Parshuram" situate at village Pedhe-Parshuram in Chiplun Tahsil of Ratnagiri district. The Trust is a charitable Trust pertaining to a temple and has been referred to by the learned district Judge as a `Devasthan'. Original Defendants No.1 to 5 of that suit were the trustees of that Trust appointed by the learned District Judge, Ratnagiri as per his order dated 22nd December 1967 in pursuance of a scheme which was framed in Civil Suit No.3 of 1889 for the management of the aforesaid Trust. In the suit filed by Respondent No.6, he prayed for the following reliefs.

(2.) IT may be mentioned here that Shankar Waman Thatte, the Appellant before me and one another person had applied to Respondent No.6 making allegations against the original Defendants No.1 to 5 who were the trustees of the Trust. In that application, the Appellant and his companion had made allegations against the original Defendants No.1 to 5 about mismanagement of the Trust and negligence and dereliction of duties as the trustees. Respondent No.6 through his inspector got some inquiries made and found a prima facie case against the original Defendants No.1 to 5 Respondent No.6 therefore filed the suit before the District Court, Ratnagiri under Section 50 of the Act praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) THOUGH the learned District Judge ordered removal of the original Defendants No.1 to 5 from the trusteeship of the Trust in question, he for reasons recorded by him in his judgment declined to grant the relief for accounts as prayed in prayer clause (e) of the plaint. The learned District Judge settled a fresh scheme for the management of the Trust in question.