BAI Vs. CHARITY COMMISSIONER MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Satara in Regular Civil Suit No. 4/69 dated 29-9-1979. The aforesaid suit was filed by the Charity Commissioner for removal of the trustees 1 to 13 from the Public Trust called Jamma Masjid (Manoray) registered under the Bombay Public Trust No. B-115 (Satara ). The above trust was registered by one Yakub Bala Mulla, husband of the defendant No. 1 and Mohamed Ali Mulla father of defendants Nos. 4 to 13 and the husband of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. Yakub died in March 1958 and Mohamad died in October 1964 and consequently defendants 1 to 13 were managing the aforesaid trust. The Charity Commissioner, the plaintiff herein, filed the aforesaid suit under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act for removal of defendants 1 to 13 and after settling the scheme proper and fit members be appointed as trustees and the trust properties were to be vested in them. The defendants 1 to 13 contested the suit and filed written statement and adduced evidence. In the suit following main issues were framed.

(2.) THE trial Court has decided these issues in favour of the plaintiff, and decreed the suit, ordering removal of the defendants 1 to 13 from the trusteeship and the new trustees were ordered to be appointed in the manner stated in the scheme of management of the suit Trust. The trial Court also finalized the draft scheme submitted before the Court and according to the said scheme, the number of trustees have been restricted to 7 and out of 7, 5 are ordered to be elected in every five years from among the major Muslims residing in Karad town. The other two trustees were ordered to be nominated from the family members of the defendants 1 to 13. It appears that this appeal has been challenged in the above said decree as filed as back as 1980 and no stay of decree has been granted by this Court. Consequently the decree seems to have been operated and the election of the trustees as per the new scheme formulated by the trial Court has been conducted. By an application, as Application No. 4091/90, filed before this Court for seeking impleadment of the three persons as respondents 16 to 19, who were allowed to have possession of the trust property. The aforesaid application for impleading the respondents 16 to 19 have been allowed by order dated 11-3-1991. In view of the subsequent development, though the appeal has become redunded, since it is pending before this Court. I have to examine the challenge set up by the appellants against the decree.

(3.) AS I pointed out earlier, in the light of the defence taken in the suit the aforesaid four issues were framed by the Court, the first issue is with regard to the properties described in Schedule A and B annexed to the plaint belongs to the trust property. It has come out in evidence that the plaintiff has produced an application filed by Yakub for registering the trust on 18-4-1952 and on the basis of this documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the property, Schedule A and B are the properties of the Public trust and the aforesaid issues therefore decided accordingly. I find no illegality in the finding of the trial Court because the conclusion arrived by the trial Court is based on documentary evidence and that too, an application filed by Yakub which is conclusively proved that the property Scheduled in A and B belonged to the public trust.