SIRISH HARI DEVKAR Vs. NARAYAN VITHOBA BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this appeal was registered as First Appeal, yet, in view of subsequent declaration of law by this Court in "shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi since deceased by heirs Shrikant Shivprasad and others Vs. Leelabai Badrinayaran Kalwar since deceased by her heirs and others" 1998 (1) Maharashtra Law Journal 444, the appeal is being treated as Second Appeal. Substantial question of law involved in this appeal is as to whether the Assistant Charity commissioner, who was directed to hold afresh inquiry regarding registration of Trust, could have decided the matter on the basis of a compromise purshis filed by the parties. In other words, the question to be determined is as to whether the parties can decide the questions by compromise which are required to be determined u/s. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts act, 1950.

(2.) A brief resume of the facts may be stated. At village Shendurni, there is an ancient temple of deity called Shri. Trivikramdeo. One Hari Devkar, had filed an application u/s. 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts act, for registration of Shri. Trivikramdeo sansthan and Kadoba Sansthan, yet another temple, as common Trust. The Assistant charity Commissioner allowed the application and directed registration of both the temples as single Trust by his order dated 27-11-1962. The order was challenged by filing Revision application No. 81/1971. The Deputy Charity commissioner allowed that application on 10-8-1972 and remanded the matter to the Assistant charity Commissioner with further direction to hold afresh inquiry. The Assistant Charity commissioner was called upon to decide as to whether there is a composite Trust for both the temples or that they are two independent trusts. The Assistant Charity Commissioner was asked to inquire into the details of properties of the temple Trust and other allied matters. The parties filed a compromise purshis. The assistant Charity Commissioner by his order dated 13-8-1974 held that the compromise is in the interest of the Trust and that the common trust shall be registered, which will include both the temples and the properties thereof. By filing a Revision Application (Revision application No. 5/1986) one Narayan Teli, challenged the order of the Assistant Charity commissioner. He contended that there are two different Trusts. He alleged that he is one of the family members of hereditary Poojaris of kadoba Sansthan He averred that the Assistant charity Commissioner could not have dispensed with the inquiry u/s. 19 on the basis of compromise petition. The Charity commissioner dismissed the Revision application. The Revision Applicant filed an appeal-cum-application u/s. 72 of the Bombay public Trusts Act, before the District Court, jalgaon. The said application (Misc. Application no. 156/87) was allowed by the District Court. The District Court held that the parties could not have compromised the proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The learned additional District Judge held that such compromise is not lawful and the Assistant charity Commissioner cannot abdicate his responsibility to inquire about existence of the two Trusts. The learned Additional District judge, therefore, allowed the application and directed afresh inquiry by setting aside the compromise purshis. Hence, this Second appeal.

(3.) Heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. V. J. Dixit, for the appellant and Mr. P. V. Barde, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-A.