1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 108 OF 2008 Shri Keteshwar Shikshan Sanstha vs. Smt. Vithabai Sitaram Dherpote & Anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 09, 2008. Heard Shri Lambat, Advocate for the appellant – original plaintiff. The challenge is to the concurrent dismissal of suits filed by the appellant Public Trust for possession of one storied house. The possession was claimed on the ground that its owner Sonabai has gifted it by registered Gift Deed. Both the Courts have concurrently found that there was no gift deed executed by Sonabai. The lower appellate Court has found that Sonabai was putting her signature and there were several such signatures available while Gift deed Exh. 51 was having her thumb impression. It is also found that the property was ancestral property and as such Sonabai could not have executed any Gift deed. The learned counsel for the appellant has 2 contended that consideration of lower appellate Court is perverse and Sonabai has put thumb impression because of her advanced age. He further states that there are certain vital admission given in cross examination by defendants but those are not considered by the lower appellate Court. He relies upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ved Ram vs. Harish Chandra, reported at AIR 2005 All. 34, to contend that lower appellate Court has failed to discharge its duties. Here I find that suit was filed by Public Trust for recovery of property allegedly gifted to it. The suit has been filed by Public Trust through its President. There is no previous permission as required by Section 50 of Bombay Public Trust Act and also the facts do not disclose that suit property is included in Schedule – I statutorily maintained under Bombay Public Trust and with the result, it cannot be said that suit property was property belonging to Public Trust. No resolution passed by Trust authorising President to file said suit has been pleaded and pointed out. It is also clear that even if suit is to be filed in accordance with law after obtaining permission, it needs to be filed before District Court. 3 In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and above discussion, I find that no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.