1 80 FA.291.11 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 291 OF 2011 Jayawant Jagannath Patil. ... Appellants Versus Sumermal Mishrimal Bafna and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Gauri K. Jadhav for the Appellant. Mr. Vineet B. Naik for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 18 th April, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. 2 This appeal is filed under Section 72 (4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). Therefore, in view of the settled law, the appeal will be maintainable on a substantial question of law. 2 80 FA.291.11 3 The challenge is to the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner by which in an inquiry under Section 19 of the said Act, certain properties were ordered to be included in Scheduled – I by holding that the properties were trust properties. The said order has been confirmed by the Joint Charity Commissioner and the learned Judge of the City Civil Court. Admittedly, the Appellant is not a person having interest in the trust. A civil suit filed by the Appellant for declaration of ownership in respect of the same property is admittedly pending in the Civil Court. 4 The learned Judge of the City Civil Court while rejecting the application under Section 72 (1) of the said Act, has relied upon decision of this Court in the case of Keki Pestonji Jamadar and another Vs. Khodadad Merwan Irani and others, (AIR 1973 Bombay 130), and has held that there is no bar created by the said Act to the Civil Court's jurisdiction to decide the question of ownership in respect of the property claimed as property of a public charitable trust. The learned Judge has observed that the Appellant is claiming an interest in the alleged trust 3 80 FA.291.11 property, which is adverse to the claim of the trust and therefore, the said claim cannot be adjudicated upon in the proceedings under the said Act. 5 Perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no adjudication made by the authorities on the alleged title claimed by the Appellants. All issues as regards the title claimed by the Appellants remain open, which will be decided in the pending civil suit. 6 Hence, no substantial question of law arises. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. First Appeal is accordingly, dismissed. 7 Civil Application No.665 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]