1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 367/2010 (Narendra Nannalal Thakkar VERSUS Mahendra Bhawanji Thakkar & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Nitin Vyawahare, counsel for the appellant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : AUGUST 18, 2010 . Heard. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 and 2 and the servants and agents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff also sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the lock from the entrance gate and to restore the electric and the water supply to the suit house. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 used to manage the estate left behind by one Shamji Lohana of Ramtek. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he became the owner of the suit property by adverse possession. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had 2 illegally disconnected the electric and water supply to the suit house and also restrained the plaintiff from entering into the suit premises. Though the suit was filed in the year 1990, just before the judgment was delivered by the trial Court on 08.02.2005, the plaintiff deleted the prayer for declaration of ownership in terms of the order dated 25th of January, 2005. The defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff. They admitted that they did not have any right and title over the suit property in their personal capacity as the suit property belonged to a public trust. It was pleaded by the defendants that they were the trustees of the suit property and the permission of the Charity Commissioner was required under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 before institution of the suit. It was pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff was permitted by the trustees of the trust to occupy some portion of the trust building. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not even paying the water and electric consumption charges and, therefore, the trustees were compelled to disconnect the water and electric supply to the premises. The defendants pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The trial as well as the appellate Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the 3 conclusion that the defendants had succeeded in proving that the Court did not possess the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of want of permission from the Charity Commissioner. The Courts held that it was apparent from the voluminous documents on record that the suit property was the trust property and the defendant no.1 was the managing trustee of the trust. The Courts held that the suit was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties also. So also, it was held that the suit was bad for non-disclosure of the cause of action. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. Both the Courts found that the suit property was the trust property and the defendant no.1 was the managing trustee of the trust. It was apparent that the plaintiff had tried to make a show before the trial Court that the suit property belonged to an individual and the defendant nos.1 and 2 were also private parties, when in deed, the suit was filed in respect of the trust property against the trustees of the trust, though they were not joined as trustees but, were joined in their personal capacity. On an appreciation of the documents on record at Exhs.71 to 81, the Courts found that it was obvious that the suit property was the trust property as the Trust Registration Certificate, copy of 4 the Register of the Public Trust, the Change Reports, the Rule Card and the Map of the trust property, etc., were placed on record by the defendants. In such circumstances, according to the Courts, the suit fell within the provisions of Section 50(iv) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and it was necessary to obtain the permission of the Charity Commissioner before the institution of the same. The Courts rightly held that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The findings recorded by both the Courts are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material evidence on record. They do not give rise to a substantial question of law. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE