Case Note & Summary
The second appeal arose from a civil suit filed by the original plaintiff (appellant) challenging the registration of his agricultural land as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The plaintiff claimed the land, Gut No. 122/A at village Ganeshwadi, was madad-mash inam land inherited from his ancestors and was never a trust property. The Assistant Charity Commissioner had registered the property as a public trust on 23.1.1964 after an enquiry, recording the statement of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged he had no knowledge of this registration until he received a notice from the Charity Commissioner on 26.11.1976 calling for accounts. He filed Regular Civil Suit No. 476 of 1978 in the Civil Court at Latur seeking a declaration that the registration order was null and void, that the land was not a public trust, and for an injunction restraining interference. The trial court decreed the suit on 21.9.1981. The State and the Charity Commissioner initially filed First Appeal No. 92 of 1982 but later withdrew it. The other defendants (respondents 3 to 9) filed Civil Appeal No. 172 of 1981, and the Additional District Judge, Latur, reversed the trial court's decree on 20.2.1986, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction and the suit was time-barred. The plaintiff then filed the present Second Appeal No. 74 of 1986. The High Court admitted the appeal on 19.3.1986 but did not frame substantial questions of law at that stage. On 10.11.2006, the court framed two substantial questions: whether the question of whether the land was inam fell outside the scope of the Bombay Public Trusts Act (thus no bar under Section 80 to the civil court's jurisdiction), and whether the suit was barred by limitation. The appellants argued that the suit was maintainable because the core issue—the nature of the land as madad-mash inam—was a matter for the civil court, and that the cause of action arose only in 1976. They relied on Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai (2005 AIR SCW 2738) and Keki Pestonji Jamadar v. Khodadad Merwan Irani (AIR 1973 Bom. 130). The respondents contended that the trust was duly registered and the civil court had no jurisdiction, and the suit was time-barred. The court examined Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act regarding registration and noted the Supreme Court's observation in Church of North India that if a question arises which is outside the purview of the Act or unconnected with administration or possession of trust property, the civil court may have jurisdiction. The judgment text provided ends abruptly during the analysis of Section 18, and the final holding of the court is not included. Consequently, the precise outcome of the second appeal remains unstated.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 9, CPC, 1908; Section 80, Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - Suit challenged order registering land as public trust, claiming it was madad-mash inam and outside the Trust Act's purview - The court observed that if the question falls outside the purview of the Trust Act, the civil court has jurisdiction, and Section 80 does not bar the suit. The court noted the principle from Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai (2005) that civil court's jurisdiction is not ousted if the issue concerns the nature of inam, which is not covered by the Trust Act. (Paras 2, 6)
B) Limitation - Limitation Act, 1963 - Suit for declaration relating to a 1964 order, cause of action triggered by 1976 notice - The court considered whether the first appellate court erred in holding the suit barred by time as one of the substantial questions of law. The plaintiff claimed the cause of action arose upon receipt of notice on 26.11.1976. (Paras 2, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the nature of land as madad-mash inam, thereby determining the applicability of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Civil court jurisdiction not barred if question falls outside scope of the Bombay Public Trusts Act
- Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act does not oust civil court's jurisdiction for determining nature of inam land
- Suit maintainable if registration order is challenged as without jurisdiction
- Registration under Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act does not conclusively determine the nature of the land if it is claimed as madad-mash inam
- Cause of action for suit against registration order can arise upon receipt of notice from Charity Commissioner
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (11) 5
Second Appeal No. 74 of 1986
Shri V.C. Solshe for appellants; Shri V.S. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2; Shri R.B. Deshmukh for respondents 3 to 9
Keshav Narayan Bharti (deceased) through his legal representatives: Parvatibai Keshav Bharti, Vishawanath Keshav Bharti, Madhav Keshav Bharti (deceased) through his L.Rs., Laxmibai Subhash Giri, Mankarna Vijaykumar Puri
1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. The Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Bombay, 3. Madhukar Pandharinath Shelke, 4. Niwarti Gyanoba Barure, 5. Sopan Vithoba Narangpure, 6. Tulshriram Govinda Narangpure, 7. Baburao Sadhu Bidwe (Dead - Abated), 8. Shamrao Vithoba Tekale, 9. Vithoba Topa Koli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration and injunction challenging registration of agricultural land as public trust.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought declaration that the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner registering the land as public trust is null and void, that the land is not a public or private trust, and an injunction restraining defendants from interfering with possession or demanding accounts.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff alleged that the suit land was madad-mash inam inherited from ancestors and not subject to any trust, but it was wrongly registered as a public trust by the Charity Commissioner without jurisdiction. After receiving a notice on 26.11.1976 to submit accounts, plaintiff filed the suit to protect his rights.
Previous Decisions
Trial court decreed the suit on 21.9.1981. First appellate court allowed appeal and reversed the decree on 20.2.1986, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction and the suit was time-barred.
Issues
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the nature of land as madad-mash inam, thereby determining the applicability of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, or whether Section 80 of the Act bars such suit.
Whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the suit was maintainable because the core issue—whether the land was madad-mash inam—was outside the purview of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, and therefore the civil court had jurisdiction. They contended that the cause of action arose on 26.11.1976 upon receipt of notice, making the suit within limitation. Relied on Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai and Keki Pestonji Jamadar v. Khodadad Merwan Irani.
Respondents argued that the land was validly registered as public trust on 23.1.1964 after due enquiry, and the plaintiff had participated and accepted the trust. They contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction as the matter fell under the Trust Act, and the suit filed in 1978 challenging a 1964 order was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi
As per the observations, the civil court has jurisdiction if the question falls outside the purview of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, such as determining the nature of inam land. Section 80 of the Act does not bar a civil suit when the issue is unconnected with administration or possession of trust property.
Judgment Excerpts
The principle enunciated in each of the decision laid down relate to the fact-situation obtaining therein. In each case indisputably the list arose for determination of a question relating to interpretation of one or the other claue enumeraed in different provisions of the BPT Act which come either within the exclusive jurisdiction of the statutory authorities or otherwise. The Civil Court will have no jurisdiction in relation to a matter whereover the statutory authorities have the requisite jurisdiction. On the other hand, if a question arises, which is outside the purview o the Act or in relation to a matter, unconnected with the administration or possession of the trust property, the Civil Court may have jurisdiction. In this case, having regard to the nature of the lis, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was clearly barred.
Whether the Inam was the only question had to be deided by the Civil Court in order to consider the question of the applicability of the Act and the said question was completely out side the scope of the Trust Act. Therefore, there is no bar of Section 80 lof the Bombay Public Trusts Act to a Civil Court.
It is appropriate to refer to relevant provisions of the Act of 1950. Section 18 of the Act of 1950 deals with the registration of the public trust.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 476 of 1978 before Civil Judge S.D. Latur for declaration and injunction. Trial court decreed the suit on 21.9.1981. Defendants 1 and 2 (State and Charity Commissioner) filed First Appeal No. 92 of 1982 but subsequently withdrew it. Respondents 3 to 9 filed Civil Appeal No. 172 of 1981 before Additional District Judge, Latur, which reversed the trial court's decree on 20.2.1986. Plaintiff filed Second Appeal No. 74 of 1986 before High Court. Appeal admitted on 19.3.1986 without framing substantial questions. On 10.11.2006, court framed two substantial questions of law and heard the parties on 13/14.11.2006.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950: Section 18, Section 80
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
- Indian Limitation Act, 1963:
- Inam Abolition Act:
