Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between the appellants and respondents over the control and management of 'Shree Ambika Education Society, Gawha', a society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The appellants claimed that appellant No.2 was elected as President of the Society on 12/7/1996 following the death of the previous President, Harbaji Ingle. The respondents challenged the election and filed applications under Section 72 of the BPT Act before the District Judge, Washim, seeking a declaration that the election was invalid and that they were entitled to manage the Society. The District Judge, by common judgment dated 16/10/2010, set aside the election and directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding the management. The appellants filed second appeals before the High Court. The High Court examined the scope of Section 72 of the BPT Act and held that the District Judge had limited jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to management and could not adjudicate issues of title and possession of trust property. The court found that the District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding such issues. The High Court also held that the election of the appellant as President was valid and that the District Judge erred in setting it aside. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the District Judge's order, and restored the election of the appellant as President. The court further observed that the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred for disputes not covered by the BPT Act.
Headnote
A) Bombay Public Trust Act - Section 72 - Jurisdiction of District Judge - Scope of Inquiry - The District Judge under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 has limited jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to the management of a public trust, and cannot adjudicate issues of title and possession of trust property. The court held that the District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding such issues. (Paras 10-15) B) Bombay Public Trust Act - Section 72 - Election of President - Validity - The election of the President of a society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 is a matter of management and falls within the purview of Section 72. The court held that the election of the appellant as President was valid and the District Judge erred in setting it aside. (Paras 16-20) C) Bombay Public Trust Act - Section 80 - Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Court - The bar under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 applies only to disputes falling within the scope of the Act. For disputes not covered by the Act, the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred. (Para 22)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge, while exercising powers under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, could decide the issue of title and possession of the trust property and whether the election of the President of the Society was valid.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed both second appeals, set aside the common judgment and order of the District Judge dated 16/10/2010, and restored the election of appellant No.2 as President of the Society. The court held that the District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of District Judge under Section 72 of Bombay Public Trust Act
- 1950 is limited to deciding disputes regarding management of trust
- not title or possession
- Election of President of a society registered under BPT Act is a matter of management
- Civil court's jurisdiction is not barred for disputes not covered by Section 80 of BPT Act
- Order of District Judge can be set aside if it exceeds jurisdiction.
