SAYYAD LATIF SAYYAD IMAM Vs. SHAIKH BABULAL BASINBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The appellants are original plaintiffs. They filed suit (R. C. S. No. 43/1979) for declaration and injunction. The dispute relates to an agricultural land bearing S. No. 64 admeasuring 2. 76 acres, situated in Camp area of Ahmednagar. The prayers of the plaintiffs may be reproduced for ready reference :

(3.) Mr. C. R. Deshpande, learned advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is well reasoned. He would further submit that originally the record of the Trust indicated only 2. 76 yards area as part of the S. No. 64 which was property of the Public Trust registered in 1953 but lateron interpolation was made in the ptr register to show its property as 2. 76 acres. He would contend that the question regarding private ownership of the property could be tried by the Civil Court and that permission of the charity Commissioner was not required. It appears that the original record was lost during the period of the flood caused due to breaking of Panshet Dam and it was subsequently reconstructed somewhere in 1960-61. The clinching question is as to whether the Trust property was shown as only 2. 76 Sq. yards while registering the Public Trust or that it was 2. 76 acres. If there is a mistake caused at the time of the registration of the Trust, the plaintiffs could seek rectification of such mistake from the Charity Commissioner. It does not however, appear from the prayer clauses that the declaration is sought in respect of the rectification of such mistake. What is claimed is that the suit property registered as property of the Public Trust No. B/79 may be directed to be "deregistered". In view of claim in respect of such a relief, the question does not remain in the domain of the Civil Court. The Apex Court in "church of North India Vs. Lavajibhai ratanjibhai and others" (A. I. R. 2005 supreme Court 2544) , held that considering the scheme of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted by implication in respect of the questions which pertain to the registration of the Trust. The apex Court in "vinayaka Dev Idagunji and others Vs. Shivaram and others" (A. I. R. 2005 Supreme Court 3081 : 2005 (5) ALL mr (S. C. ) 861) , held that suit to establish right of inheritance in respect of position as archaks is for establishment of private right and would not be barred. This Court in "keshav Narayan bharti Dead through his L. Rs. Vs. State of maharashtra and others" 2007 (1) Bom. C. R. 634 : [2007 (3) ALL MR 667], held that a question whether particular land is a Trust land or it is a private land has to be decided by the charity Commissioner and jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in such a matter.