1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1878 OF 2007 Shri Prabhakar Nivrutti More & Ors. ...Appellants. v. 1 Khadak Panch Mandal, Pune & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. A.A.Garge, adv. For the Appellants. Mr. Ajay A. Joshi, adv. For the Respondents. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 27th August , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned VIIIth Ad-hoc Additional District Judge in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.988 of 2000 filed by the present appellants under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. That application was filed against the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner rejecting Revision Application No.36/99 filed by the present appellants. 2 To state in brief, it is the case of the appellants that the whole City Survey No.996 (New CTS NO.549) located near Shukrawar Peth belongs to the predecessor of the appellants. Vithal temple is also in existence on the said property. The public trust was registered only in respect of that temple and not in respect of whole of the property. However, complete City Survey No.996 has been recorded as a property 2 of the public trust namely, Khadak Pancha Mandal. Application is opposed by the Trust and trustees. Record reveals that one Kashinath More, predecessor of the present appellants, was one of the trustees of the said trust. All the trustees, including Kashinath More, had filed an application no.1090 of 1952 for registration of the trust and incorporation of certain properties of the trust in the register. One of the properties was temple bearing C.S.No.996. Pending that application, Kashinath More filed another application no.1520 of 1952 contending that only the temple on that property be declared as public trust. After hearing the parties, Application no.1090/52 was granted on 4.10.1954. The Application No.1520/52 was rejected on 10.10.1959 mainly on the ground that application no.1520/52 filed by Kashinath More in his individual capacity was inconsistent with the application filed by him alongwith the other trustees earlier. Admittedly after rejection of application no.1520/52 on 10.10.1959 filed by Kashinath More, no steps were taken by Kashinath More or his descendents till 1997 to challenge that order either by way of appeal or revision. Thus, that order has become final. For the first time in 1997, Revision Application No.36/99 was filed by the present appellants being the legal heirs of Kashinath More. According to them, the property bearing C.S.No.996 is the large 3 property consisting of temple as well as open land. According to them, only the temple part of that property is property of the trust and the trust has nothing to do with the open land. Therefore, the appellants wanted Charity Commissioner to rectify the record so as to exclude the property C.S.No.996 other than temple from the property register of the trust. That application was opposed by the trustees and the trust. According to them, complete City Survey No.996 was registered as property of the trust and it can not be modified after the lapse of more than 40 years. 3 Revision Application came to be rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner by the order dated 6.11.2000 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, as per earlier Application No.1090 of 1952, the whole city survey number was registered and recorded as property of the trust and there was no mention that only temple part of that property would be property of trust. It was noted that claim of Kashinath More in his application no.1520/52, that only the temple part of the property be recorded as property of the trust excluding remaining portion of the property, was specifically rejected. Secondly, the application for revision has been filed after lapse of about 40 years. In fact, about 43 years had passed if counted from the order of 1954 when the application no.1090 of 1952 was allowed and 38 years from the date when application no. 4 1520/52 was rejected. Application under Section 72 was also rejected by the District Court almost on the same points. 4 The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that Section 70A conferring powers of revision on the Charity Commissioner was inserted by amendment in 1954 with sole intention that while deciding the matters, the technicalities should not come in a way. The learned counsel contends that no period of limitation has been prescribed for invoking powers under Section 70A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act and, therefore, merely on account of delay in filing the application , it could not have been rejected. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the Virbala K. Kewalram & Ors. v. Ramchand Lalchand & Ors. 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 94 and Dadasaheb v. Ushadevi Rajaram Nimbalkar 2002 (2) Mh.L.J. 740 wherein it was held that taking into consideration the purpose of Section 70A of the Bombay Public Trust Act and the fact that , no period of limitation has been prescribed, no limitation is applicable to exercise revisional powers Suo- motu or on the application made by the parties. In Dadasaheb (Supra), this Court specifically stated that when no period of limitation has been provided, Authorities have to exercise powers within the reasonable time from the date cause of action arises for the parties to make grievances 5 about any findings or order. In view of the legal position stated in the above two authorities, there can be no dispute that when no period of limitation is prescribed to exercise revisional powers under Section 70- A, application can not be rejected merely on the ground of delay and the authority may exercise the revisional jurisdiction within the reasonable time. What is reasonable time would depend upon the facts of each case and no period can be prescribed for that purpose. If certain order is passed against the party without giving opportunity of hearing or without the knowledge then all the period during which they had no knowledge has to be ignored and the Charity Commissioner has to find out whether after getting knowledge or information of that order within reasonable time and expeditiously application has been made to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. In the present case, Kashinath More, predecessor of the present appellants, was himself an applicant in both the applications, i.e., Application No.1090 of 1952 and Application No. 1250/52. First application was made by him as a trustee alongwith the other trustees wherein he had shown C.T.S.No.996 consisting of temple as the property of the trust and that application was allowed to his knowledge. Pending that application, he had in his individual capacity made application no.1250 of 1952 wherein he had tried to claim that 6 open land comprised in C.T.S.No.996 be treated as his personal property and only the structure of the temple be registered as trust property. That application was rejected after enquiry and hearing the parties. That order was passed in 1959. For 38 years neither Kashinath More nor his descendants challenged that order till the revision application was filed in 1997. The period of 38 years in such circumstances can not be said to be reasonable period for moving application to invoke or exercise revisional jurisdiction . 5 Besides question of limitation, it appears that both the authorities below duly considered facts of the case and came to conclusion that claim of Kashinath More over the land C.S.NO.996 excluding the temple, was specifically rejected and taking into consideration the material, they can not be heard to say that only the structure of the temple or the land beneath that structure has become property of the trust while the remaining property continues to be property of the family. I find no illegality or impropriety in the concurrent finding of the fact of both the Courts below. Therefore, I find no substance in the present appeal. 6 Appeal stands dismissed. As the First appeal itself is dismissed, Civil Application No.6257 of 2007 does not survive and 7 stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)