RAJARAM SAKHARAM MULE Vs. RAJENDRA SAKHARAM DHARMADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel.

(2.) Shri Ram Mandir trust was registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act. It was basically based on the application filed by father of the respondent, by exercising Section 18 for the purposes of registration. The respondents were brought as trustees by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner as per Section 50A. The change report was also submitted. The appellants herein, applied for framing of the scheme, as was directed by Joint Charity Commissioner and same was subject to challenge by the respondent by filing Misc. Civil Application No.256/1986 before the District Judge at Jalgaon. The respondents also challenged the order of Joint Charity Commissioner referred above before the District Judge. The learned District Judge dispose of the Misc. Civil Application by common order dated 16th April 1993 passed in Misc.Civil Application No.256/1986 present first appeal is preferred.

(3.) Having gone through the claim in the application No.27 of 1984 and 59 of 1984, approved by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Bombay dated 22.5.1986, it cannot be said that the said scheme is contrary to the interest of the trust. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner, did not entertain the incorporation of members of the present appellants, the persons who are competent from other group was already considered, to be appointed as trustees. It was the circumstances which compelled the learned Judge, in the interest of proper management and administration of the said trust, to approve the scheme. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has reminded himself about the original object and mode of succession of the trust enumerated in the application for registration moved since inception. Before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, two schemes as referred above were produced which prompted him to consider as to which scheme is better for benefit and conduct of the trust. Taking of the facts, clauses and consequences the scheme moved under application no.59/1984 by way of draft scheme was found to be just and reasonable for proper management and administration of the trust in question. However, while entertaining the said scheme, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner has added three more trustees to look after the interest of the beneficiaries and he has put a ceiling on the minimum and maximum board of trustees. The scheme promulgated by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in the set of facts, cannot be said to be flowing contrary to the interest of the trust. The earlier scheme could not accept the challenges and even was beyond effecting amendment. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner has considered to maintain the equilibrium of the persons who are interested in better management of the trust and to avoid any incident of rift and the process of election. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the appeal, it is accordingly dismissed.