VIDARBHA KSHATRIYA MALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI WASUDEORAO DATTAJI SONAR Vs. MAHATMA FULEY SHIKSHAN SAMITI, AMRAVATI THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT RUPRAO BHIMRAO YAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the defendant against the order of the learned trial Court holding that it has jurisdiction to proceed with the suit filed by the non -applicant plaintiff.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that after the summer vacation of 1980, the defendant did not hand over the suit premises to the plaintiff for running the school classes, although as per the agreement it Was entitled to get them. The plaintiff, therefore, brought the instant suit against the defendant to restrain it from interfering with its right to run the school classes in the suit premises till the summer vacation. The defendant filed its written statement. According to the defendant, the licence of the plaintiff was terminated from the summer vacation of 1980 and, therefore, the plaintiff had no right to claim any injunction against it. It was also urged that in view of the provisions of section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (for short the Act) the instant suit was not maintainable without the permission of the Charity Commission. Another objection raised in the suit was that it was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties as the Charity Commissioner being a necessary party to be joined as per section 51(3) of the Act was not joined as a party in the suit.

(3.) A perusal of the above provisions would show that in relation to the public trusts, a special right is created even in the third person like the "Charity Commissioner" or the "persons having interest" who may not have their own civil rights to enforce to institute a suit in respect of any matter covered by the said section which would not ordinarily be there if their own rights were not involved. It may be seen that such a special suit lies not in the normal forum where any suit under the Code lies but in the special forum of the District Court, as provided the reunder. In my view section 50 of the Act is a section analogous to section 92 of the Code although to a certain extent as regards the subject matter it may be wider than it. However, what is most important is that the definition of the expression "persons having interest" given in section 2 (10) of the Act includes only certain classes of persons. The suit contemplated by section 50 can be instituted either by the "Charity Commissioner" or the "persons interested" with his consent. Since all persons who want to enforce their civil rights are not covered by the definition of the expression "persons having interest" they would be left to the mercy of the Charity Commissioner or the persons having interest covered by the definition clause for enforcement of their private rights if the suit can be instituted only in the manner as provided in section 50. Even assuming that such persons are covered by the definition clause, they would still be at the mercy of the Charity Commissioner for enforcement of their personal rights. Such a consequence in my view is not contemplated by section 50 of the Act. The persons who have their own rights to enforce cannot, therefore, be compelled to follow the procedure laid down in the said section. A suit to enforce one's own civil right instituted under the Code in the ordinary forum provided for the same is thus competent.