1 fa536-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa FIRST APPEAL NO.536 OF 2010 Yateemkhana & Madrasa Anjuman Khairul Islam Trust Bearing PTR No. B/339 & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. Mr.Hussein Usman Merchant & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. Rafique Dada, Senior counsel a/w. Mr.Abhay Khandeparkar a/w. Ms. Uma Vyavoharkar a/w. Mr. Abhay Dhadiwal i/b. M/s. Khaitan & Jayakar for the appellants. Ms. Hussein Usman Merchand, respondent No.2, present in person. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 21, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants. Heard the respondent No.1 appearing in person. This Appeal under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), arises out of an order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay on an application under Section 72(1) of the said Act. In view of the settled law, this Appeal is maintainable only on a substantial question of law. 2 fa536-10 2. The Appeal arises out of the proceeding of the change report under Section 22 of the said Act. The Change report was filed by the appellants for recording the alleged change of deletion of the names of the four retired trustees of a public charitable trust and for including the names of alleged newly appointed trustees. The change report was partly allowed to the extent to which the entry of names of the retired trustees was accepted but, the entry of the names of allegedly newly appointed trustees was not accepted. 3. The part of the change report has not been accepted on the ground that the first respondent had right to attend the meeting of the Board of Trustees dated 28th April, 1997 in which alleged new trustees were elected and the meeting was held behind the back of the said respondent. It was held that on 28th April, 1997, when the meeting of the Board of Trustees was held, the first respondent was entitled to act as an ad-hoc trustee of the said Trust under the interim order of this Court and that he was not given notice of the meeting. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the notice dated 21st April, 1997 of the meeting held on 3 fa536-10 28th April, 1997. He invited attention of the Court to the copy of the Minutes of the Meeting held on 28th April, 1997, which according to him shows presence of the respondents. He relied upon the notice dated 2nd June, 1997 of the meeting held on 10th June, 1997 and the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10th June, 1997 which according to him show that the earlier Minutes were confirmed in the presence of the respondents. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, however, states that the notice dated 2nd June, 1997 and the Minutes of the Meeting dated 10th June, 1997 are not on the record of the change report. On instructions he states that though notice dated 21st April, 1997 of meeting dated 28th April, 1997 as well as Minutes of the said meeting were placed on record of the charge report proceeding, the same have not been marked as exhibits. The first respondent appearing in person states that the said two documents have not been produced on record of the charge report proceedings. 6. I have considered the submissions. Perusal of the impugned orders shows that the evidence of the appellants was ordered closed 4 fa536-10 and request of the appellants to allow them to lead further evidence was rejected by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. The said orders have been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. No evidence was adduced by the appellants to prove the service of notice of meeting to the first respondent and the contents of the minutes of the meeting. The order denying permission to the appellants to adduce evidence has been confirmed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1890 of 2002 by order dated 5th September, 2002. 7. The part of the change report has been rejected only on the ground that the meeting held on 28th April, 1997 was behind the back of the first respondent. The contention of the appellants that respondent No.1 was given notice and that had attended the meeting could have been proved only by proving the service of the Notice of meeting to the first respondent and by proving the contents of the Minutes of the Meeting dated 28th April, 1997. Admittedly, both these documents have not been proved before the Deputy Charity Commissioner in an enquiry held on the change report. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants 5 fa536-10 submitted that the first respondent had no locus to attend the meeting as his appointment as ad-hoc trustee was set aside subsequently. However, the said contention cannot be accepted as findings of the Authorities is that on the date the meeting was held, the first respondent was entitled to act as an ad-hoc trustee on the basis of the order of this Court which was subsisting on the date of the meeting. 9. In view of this position, it is not possible to find fault with the findings of fact concurrently recorded by all the three authorities that the resolution dated 28th April, 1997 is illegal on the ground that though in terms of interim order of this Court the first respondent had right to attend the meeting of the trustees, the same was conducted without notice to him behind his back. No substantial question of law arises in view of the concurrent findings of fact. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. JUDGE