Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Anil Govindrao Shirkhedkar, filed a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and order of the District Judge-2, Amravati, dated 14-8-2000, which dismissed his Misc. Civil Appeal No.168 of 2009. The appeal arose from an order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati, who framed a scheme under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, for the management of Shri Hanuman Mandir, Wedapur, a public trust. The scheme was framed in Application No.31 of 2000 filed by respondents 1 to 9. The appellant, who was a party to the proceedings, challenged the scheme before the District Judge, but the appeal was dismissed. In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the scheme was not properly framed and that the lower courts had erred. However, the High Court, after hearing the parties, found that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The court noted that the findings of fact were concurrent and that the scheme had been validly framed under the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appellant challenged the scheme framed under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, in second appeal. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the findings of fact were concurrent and the scheme was validly framed. The appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Trusts - Scheme for Public Trust - Section 50A Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - The Deputy Charity Commissioner framed a scheme for Shri Hanuman Mandir, Wedapur, under Section 50A of the Act. The scheme was upheld by the District Judge. The High Court found no error in the concurrent findings and dismissed the second appeal. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and order of the District Judge dismissing the appeal against the scheme framed under Section 50A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, involves any substantial question of law.
Final Decision
Second Appeal No.94 of 2011 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Scheme framed under Section 50A of Bombay Public Trusts Act
- 1950
- cannot be challenged in second appeal unless substantial question of law arises
- Scope of second appeal under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law
- Concurrent findings of fact are binding in second appeal
