:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2006 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2006 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2006 Mohammed Anwar Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. ...Applicants. v. Barkati Masjid Trust & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Firoz A. Ansari, adv. for the Applicants. Mr.Narayan Bubra, adv. for the Respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 22nd January, 2008. DATE: 22nd January, 2008. DATE: 22nd January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2. The respondent no.1 is the trust and the remaining respondents are trustees of the respondent no.1 trust. Respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Malegaon contending that the defendants, who are present revision applicants are trying to interfere in the management of trust property without any legal rights, they are trying to put up their own board and carrying on their activities within the premises of the property of the plaintiff/trust. Therefore, they sought perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in their possession and management. They also sought mandatory injunction seeking direction to the defendants to remove their :2: board from the premises of Barkati Masjid. They also sought temporary injunction against the defendants. The defendants filed an application under Section 9A of the Civil Procedure Code and requested the trial Court to frame preliminary issues about its jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs had not obtained prior consent of the Charity Commissioner as required under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and, therefore, the suit is not tenable and the Civil Court does not have any jurisdiction. 3. In view of this application, the trial Court framed following issues: "1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the suit ? 2. Whether the suit is bad for want of prior sanction of Charity Commissioner U/sec.50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ? 3. What order ?" After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants and held that prior permission and sanction of the Charity Commissioner is not necessary for the trust for filing a suit for enforcement of its civil rights and the Civil Court has jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the said findings, the defendants have preferred the present :3: revision application. 4. There is no dispute that the plaintiff no.1 is the registered public trust and the plaintiff nos.2 to 5 are the trustees. Defendant nos.1 to 11, who are the applicants before this Court are not trustees. They are said to be members of Raza Academy and according to the plaintiffs, these defendants had put up board of Raza Academy within the premises of the trust property, i.e., the mosque and were trying to carry on their activities, which are not concerned with the work of the trust. They are also trying to interfere into the management of the trust and are also disturbing the possession of the management over the trust property. The contention of the defendants is only that being the members of the community, they are also beneficiaries. However, there is nothing to show that any of the defendants is trustee or has got any legal right to interfere in the management of the trust. As the members of community, they may be having right to visit the mosque and offer prayers but that does not mean that they have got right to interfere in the management of trust. That right of the management is entrusted only with the trustees of the trust. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents vehemently contended that when the trust is trying to establish and enforce its civil :4: rights against third party and want to protect the property of the trust from any encroachment or obstruction or interference from the third party not having any legal rights over the same, it is not necessary to obtain prior consent of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act to file a suit. He finds support from Amirchand Amirchand Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta and others v. Vasant Dhanaji Patil and Tulsiram Gupta and others v. Vasant Dhanaji Patil and Tulsiram Gupta and others v. Vasant Dhanaji Patil and others, 1992 Maharashtra Law Journal 275 others, 1992 Maharashtra Law Journal 275 others, 1992 Maharashtra Law Journal 275 wherein Division Bench of this Court extensively considered several authorities of the Supreme Court as well as this Court before coming to the conclusion that the trustee is the legal owner of the trust property and enjoys all the rights inherent in a natural owner of property and can sue to recover trust property and Section 50 can not apply as a bar to the substantive right of the trustee to institute suit. This authority has been relied upon by this Court in number of cases. It is also followed in Shree Bhairavanath Devasthan Trust v. Bajaba Nathu Shree Bhairavanath Devasthan Trust v. Bajaba Nathu Shree Bhairavanath Devasthan Trust v. Bajaba Nathu Pathare & Ors. 2000(1) Bombay C.R. 426 Pathare & Ors. 2000(1) Bombay C.R. 426 Pathare & Ors. 2000(1) Bombay C.R. 426 wherein the plaintiff trust had filed the suit against the third party seeking perpetual injunction restraining the third party from obstructing use of the trust property. The trial Court had returned the plaint for obtaining permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 50. It was held by the learned Single Judge of this Court that the action against the trespassers by trust is not covered by Section 50 of the Act and no permission under :5: Section 51 is required to be obtained. The present case is squarely covered by these two authorities. The trial Court was right in holding that as the plaintiffs are the trust and trustees, it is not necessary for them to obtain prior permission of the Charity Commissioner to file the suit against the defendants for restraining them from causing any interference or obstruction in the management and possession of the plaintiffs over the trust property. I find no substance in the present Revision Application. 6. In the result, Revision Application stands dismissed. 7. As the Revision Application itself has been disposed off, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)