CHANDRAKANT GOVIND DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that falls for consideration is whether absence of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code to the State Government as well as to the Registrar of Public Trusts is fatal to the suit instituted under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (Act XXX of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act)? The question arises thus.

(2.) THERE is one Deosthan at Mangrul-Dastagir in Amravati district, which is known as Gajanan Maharaj Sansthan. The appellant Chandrkant filed an application before the Registrar of Public Trusts, purporting to be one under Section 4 of the Act, wherein he claimed that the aforesaid Sansthan was not a public trust, but was a private trust belonging to his family and o? which he was the trustee. He therefore prayed that the trust be not registered as a public trust under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) THE Registrar by his order dated 1-3-1955 held that the trust was a public trust and it appears that an entry to that effect, in consequence of the aforesaid finding of the Registrar, was made in the register under Section 7 of the Act and was publish ed on the notice board on 8th October, 1955. On 3rd December, 1955 appellant Chandrakant instituted a civil suit (C. Si No. 4-A of 1955) in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Amravati, under Section 8 of the Act to have the aforesaid finding of the Registrar set aside. To this suit, appellant Chandrakant had joined the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Registrar of Public Trusts as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. On behalf of the defendants i. e. the State Government and Registrar, it was, inter alia, contended that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as notice, as required by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, was not given. In the alternative it had also been pleaded that the suit was barred by time. The learned trial judge framed two priliminary issues on the aforesaid two contentions raised by the defendants. He held that the suit was not maintainable as no notice under Section 80 had been given. He also held that the suit was barred by time, Against this decision of the trial Court an appeal was preferred to this Court (First Appeal No. 79 of 1957) and the learned Single Judge held that the suit was not barred by time. He however held that the suit was bad as no notice was given under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code. Against this decision of the Single Judge, appellant Chandrakant preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent and the Division Bench having regard to the two decisions of a Single Judge of this Court and certain observations in the decision of a Division Bench, which support the respondents, bag referred this case to a larger Bench. It appears from the Order of the Division Bench that it is of the view that in the circumstances of the case notice under Section 80 is not necessary. In the referring order, however, the question arising for our consideration has not been framed. We have, therefore, framed the aforesaid question which falls for our consideration. It may be stated that counsel of the parties agree that this is the question which we have to consider.