Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by Lakhanlal, Omprakash, and Dilip Purohit (applicants) against an order dated 22.6.1998 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Akot, rejecting their application under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The non-applicant is Marwadi Samshan Hanuman Mandir, Akot, a registered public trust, represented by its President Brijlal Maniklal Bhandari. The trust filed a Regular Civil Suit seeking a declaration that the applicants have no right or title to transfer or execute any sale-deed of the suit land (2 Hectares 47 R) without permission of the Collector. The plaint alleged that the land is held by the trust, which had a tenant named Rukhmanibai. The tenant failed to purchase the land and executed a sale-deed on 30.4.1990 in favor of the applicants. According to the trust, the tenant had no right to execute the sale-deed, and thus the applicants have no title. The applicants filed an application under Section 9-A CPC contending that the suit is not tenable for want of permission from the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and that the civil court has no jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Act. The trial court rejected the application cryptically, stating that Section 50 has no application since the trust is suing for its own right and the suit is not concerned with the trust. The High Court noted that the trial court's order was cryptic and did not properly consider the grounds raised. The court observed that a trust is not an independent legal entity but an obligation annexed to property, and the practice of suing in the name of the trust is erroneous. The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application under Section 9-A CPC in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Section 9-A CPC - Preliminary Objection as to Jurisdiction - The applicants filed an application under Section 9-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the tenability of the suit on grounds of lack of permission under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and bar of jurisdiction under Section 80 of the Act. The trial court rejected the application summarily. (Paras 1, 4) B) Trust Law - Section 50 Bombay Public Trusts Act - Permission of Charity Commissioner - A suit filed by a trustee in the name of the trust without prior permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is not tenable. The court held that the trial court's cryptic rejection was erroneous and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 1, 4) C) Trust Law - Section 80 Bombay Public Trusts Act - Bar of Jurisdiction - Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters falling within the purview of the Act. The trial court failed to consider this ground properly. (Paras 1, 4) D) Trust Law - Legal Entity - Trust as Obligation - A trust is not an independent legal entity but an obligation annexed to property. The practice of suing in the name of the trust is erroneous. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit filed by a trustee in the name of the trust without obtaining permission under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act is tenable, and whether Section 80 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the impugned order dated 22.6.1998, and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the application under Section 9-A CPC in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 9-A CPC
- Section 50 Bombay Public Trusts Act
- Section 80 Bombay Public Trusts Act
- jurisdiction of civil court
- trust as legal entity
- permission of Charity Commissioner
