1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2148 of 2008 Damodar M. Karle .. Appellant versus Kammala V. karle & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.K.S. Dewal for the appellant CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 1st December 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellan. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 28th July 2008 passed by the District Judge (2) Raigad in an application u/s.72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. 3. As held by the Division Bench of this court, an appeal against the order passed u/s.72 of the 2 Bombay Public Trust Act, though numbered as First Appeal is to be treated as Second Appeal and is subject to the same limitations as are applicable to Second Appeal u/s.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. In my view, no substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for the reasons mentioned below. 5. In an enquiry u/s.22 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the Assistant Charity Commissioner held the property bearing land survey no.110/1 (for short "the suit land") was a property of the trust and it should be shown as such in the register (the B.P.T Register) maintained under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The trust came into existence in the year 1959. An application was made in the year 1997 or thereabout for entering the property in the B.P.T. register on the basis of mutation entry effected in the year 1947. By that mutation entry the name of the Trust was entered as the owner of the property in the revenue records. It is settled principle of law that entries in the revenue records are made for fiscal purposes and they do not confer title. No document was produced by the appellant or any of the trustees to show that the trust was the owner of the suit property. Merely placing a reliance on the mutation entry effected in the year 1947, the 3 property was sought to be entered as a trust property in the B.P.T. Register. The decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was set aside by the Charity Commissioner on appeal. The appellate authority relied upon the revenue records in existence prior to the year 1947 and held that the trust was not the owner. In view of the fact that the trust had not produced any material on record except the mutation entry effected in the year 1947 the appellate authority held that the suit property was not the trust property. The decision of Charity Commissioner was affirmed by the District Court. Two authorities have come to the conclusion that decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was erroneous and the suit property is not the trust property. This is purely finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and in my view, appreciation suffers no perversity. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J)