ash 1 fa-683.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.683 OF 2010 The Bombay Dakshina Mara Nadar Sangam. .. Appellant. Vs Tirunelveli Dakshinamara Nadar Sangam & Ors. .. Respondents -- Shri Ashok Mishra for the Appellant. Shri C.P. Deogirikar for Respondent No.1. Shri Vinod Mahadik for Respondent No.13. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 26TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . On the last date, the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant were heard. 2. On 29th June, 2011, only by way of indulgence, time was granted to the Appellant till 14th July, 2011. On 14th July, 2011, again time was granted till today. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant seeks time to produce additional documents. Time cannot be granted as more than sufficient opportunities have been granted. 3. The Appellant is the Plaintiff. The Appellant Society was ash 2 fa-683.10 registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and consequently it was registered as a Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said Act of 1950”). The suit was filed by the Appellant in January, 2004 for challenging the order dated 23rd April, 1973 passed by the Assistant Registrar of the Societies by which the Appellant Trust was amalgamated with the 1st Respondent-Trust. The prayer in the suit filed in the year 2004 is to set aside the said order dated 23rd April, 1973. The second prayer is for a declaration that a building plan sanctioned by the 13th Respondent for construction of a building on the trust property is illegal and bad in law. Perpetual injunction has been prayed for restraining the Respondents from carrying on the construction. The suit was contested by the Respondent Nos.1 to 12 by filing a written statement. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and decree has dismissed the suit, both on merits as well as on the ground of bar of limitation. The learned Judge held that the suit was bad for want of sanction by the learned Charity Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has taken the Court through the impugned judgment, compilation of documents containing the true copies of the pleadings, notes of evidence and the documents on record of the Trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the order of amalgamation was passed ash 3 fa-683.10 without the consent of the founder President of the Appellant. He submitted that even a copy of the order of amalgamation was not supplied to the Appellant. He submitted that earlier suit filed by the Appellant was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit and accordingly, the present suit has been filed. He submitted that the suit plot was purchased by the founder President of the Appellant from his own funds. He submitted that the order of amalgamation of the Trust is illegal and void and, therefore, the issue of bar of limitation does not arise. He submitted that all the earlier proceedings filed by the Appellant were dismissed in default and not on merits. He submitted that one Soosai Anthony Nadar, who claims to be a President and founder member of the Appellant, has spent his life savings for establishing the Appellant-Trust, and therefore, the matter ought to be resolved by mediation. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. As stated earlier, the suit was filed in the year 2004 for challenging the order of amalgamation of the Appellant with the 1st Respondent which was passed way back on 23rd April, 1973. Even according to the case made out in the Plaint, the Appellant Trust was registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the said Act of 1950. A change report under Section 22 of the said Act of 1950 on the basis of the order of amalgamation was filed before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. By ash 4 fa-683.10 the order dated 21st March, 1988, the said change report was accepted on the basis of the order of amalgamation. The said order was subjected to challenge by the said Shri Soosai Anthony Nadar by preferring an appeal before the Joint Charity Commissioner. The said Appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority while dismissing the Appeal by order dated 12th April, 1990 has observed that the order of Amalgamation has become final and it was not challenged. Being aggrieved by the orders, an application under Section 72 of the said Act of 1950 was filed by the said Shri Soosai Nadar. The said Application was dismissed in default. The First Appeal preferred by the said Shri Soosai Nadar in this Court was dismissed and even the Special Leave Petition has been dismissed by order dated 11th October, 2002. It is pertinent to note that the said Soosai Nadar has preferred the present Appeal claiming to be the President of the Appellant. 6. It is pertinent to note that in the year 1973 itself on the basis of order of amalgamation, the separate existence of the Appellant was wiped out. 7. As pointed out earlier, on the basis of the amalgamation, a change report was filed which was allowed and the order accepting the change report has been confirmed the Apex Court on 11th October, 2002. The present suit has been filed in the year 2004. The earlier suit ash 5 fa-683.10 which was withdrawn was filed in the year 2004. 8. The Learned Trial Judge has recorded a finding that in an appeal arising out of the change report proceedings, the leaned Joint Charity Commissioner has held that after the amalgamation of the two Trusts, the elections of the amalgamated Trust were held on various occasions and the said Shri Soosai Nadar took an active part in the said elections. The second witness examined by the Appellant admitted that the Appellant Trust was no more in existence. Thus, all along, the said Soosai Nadar was aware of the order of the amalgamation passed way back in the year 1973. The suit for declaration filed in the year 2004 has been rightly held as barred by law of limitation. Even on merits, the learned Trial Judge was justified in dismissing the suit in view of the order passed on the change report attaining finality. There is no merit in the Appeal. 9. This is a dispute regarding amalgamation of the two Public Charitable Trusts. The order of amalgamation has been passed in the year 1973 and, therefore, no purpose will be served by sending the dispute either for Mediation or before a Lok Adalat. There is no merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. ash 6 fa-683.10 10. Civil Application No.1765 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )