Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. In view of this, there is no specific bar created either Under Section 50 or Sections 51 and 80 of the BPT Act to file a suit without the permission of the Charity Commissioner. Such a suit for recovery of possession of the trust property is, therefore, maintainable in the Court of ordinary civil jurisdiction.

12. Now the question is if such a suit is instituted in the Court of District Judge and it was tried after due contest, whether can be said to be without jurisdiction. Under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code every suit should be instituted in the Court of lowest grade competent to try it. In the present case, suit was filed before the Additional District Judge /District Court being the court of higher grade. The judgment and order passed by the District Court being the Court of higher grade, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It does not affect the jurisdiction as such. At the most, this can be an irregularity but in the facts and circumstances of the case it no way affects the jurisdiction of the District Court to pass a judgment and decree in such a suit. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code to institute a suit in a lowest grade is a procedural aspect. It cannot affect the question of jurisdiction of Court to interfere and try such suit. Such provisions cannot limit or nullify a jurisdiction of the Court. Dakor Temple Committee v. Shankerlal Shankerlal AIR. (31) 1944 Bombay 300.

15. It is settled now that BPT Act, as observed by the Apex Court in Church of North India (supra) is a complete Code. The "person interested" as defined Under Section 2(10) and the "trustees interested", under the scheme of the Act require to resort to the provisions of the BPT Act in all matters relating to the trust, trust properties and/or its management. There are various provisions which are available under the BPT Act which need to be resorted by the concerned parties. We are concerned with Sections 80, 50 and 51 of the BPT Act. The consistent view so far as Bombay High Court is concerned in respect of filing of suits by "persons having interest" as defined in Section 2(10) of the BPT Act which includes "Trustees" to recover possession of the property against person holding adversely has been considered in Shree Gollaleshwar Dev (supra), Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta (supra) and Leelavati (supra) and GafoorAli Hussain and Ors. (supra). All these judgments have made it very clear that in a suit, filed by Trustees of Public Charitable Trust, for eviction of a trespasser or for a recovery of possession and/or such action, no permission of the Charity Commissioner is necessary. Such suit, therefore, is maintainable against the trespasser, without the permission as contemplated Under Sections 50 and 51 of the BPT Act.