( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2009 Dwarkadas s/o Yeshwantrao Pathrikar APPELLANT VERSUS Annasaheb s/o Bhagvanrao Khandare and others. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.V. Soman, advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.N. Gaddime, advocate holding for Mr. V.D. Gunale, advocate for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. S.V. Adwant, advocate for the respondent No.2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 24th November, 2009] PER COURT : 1. This appeal arises out of three concurrent judgements rendered by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Joint Charity Commissioner and the District Court in the proceedings arising out of the change reports. The appellant claims to be President of a Public Trust called “Foster Development Trust, Aurangabad”. He had ( 2 ) filed change report No. 1489/2002. It was the first change report wherein the change of Managing Body of the Trust was indicated and the appellant was shown as President. He again filed another change report No. 123/2003 showing that in the Managing Body, there were other members. The learned Deputy Charity Commissioner disposed of the change report No. 123/2003 without giving any finding as such. No appeal was preferred against the said order of disposal. It appears that the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner held that the change report submitted by the appellant vide C.R. No. 1489/2002 could not be approved because new fourteen (14) members were shown to have been inducted in accordance with the meeting which was allegedly held on 30th November, 2000. It was held that the appellant in connivance with others had prepared doctored document regarding holding of such a meeting wherein those fourteen members were inducted. This finding of fact is confirmed by the Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the learned District Judge. 2. The only significant question in this second ( 3 ) appeal could be about the findings of the three authorities in respect of the absence of any resolution for induction of new fourteen (14) members. However, such a finding of fact is based on material which was before the authorities and the learned District Judge. Originally, there were nine (9) founder members of the Trust. Out of them, one died and another resigned. Thus, seven (7) founder members remained and without their concurrence and without adopting proper procedure, new fourteen (14) members could not be inducted. What transpires from the record is that the appellant himself got inducted the fourteen (14) members without adopting appropriate procedure and thereafter filed change report No. 1489/2002. It is argued by the learned counsel Mr. Soman that since there was no appeal preferred against disposal of Change Report No. 123/2003, the status of newly added 14 members could be regarded as acceptable to the respondents. I do not agree. It appears that no finding on merits was recorded about status of those 14 members while disposing of the Change Report No. 123/2003 and, therefore, it cannot be treated as estoppel nor can it operate as res judicata. In view of ( 4 ) these concurrent findings of fact, the second appeal is dismissed as it is outside scope of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/sa246.09