Case: VIJAY PULLARWR  Vs. HANUMAN DEOSTAN

It is then stated that after the death of Chotelal Bhikaji Pardeshi, a change report was submitted to the local office of the public trust at Nagpur which came to be rejected as no proper succession was documented. Resultantly, the local persons having interest in the affairs of the Math preferred an application for framing of a scheme and appointment of trustees, being application No.71 of 1971. The Deputy Charity Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Sectionof the 1950 Act framed a scheme and appointed four persons as trustees of Shri Hanuman Deosthan, namely, Bhayyalal Giridharilal, Kashiram Fakiraji Potbhare, Laxman Zingaraji Sapate, Navi Shukravari and Narayan Tanbaji Kurkute vide order dated 4 th April, 1975 (Exh.46). In short, the respondent asserted that the suit property occupied by the predecessor of the appellants, namely Wasudeo Pullarwar, was the property of the presiding deity Shri Hanuman Deosthan and was managed by the trustees in whom it vested for management. The occupant, Vasant Pullarwar, had no right, title or interest in the said house.      5. It is then stated that a notice was issued to defendant No.2/appellant No.1 (son of defendant No.1, the said Wasudeo Pullarwar), dated 4 th November, 1977, calling upon him to pay the rent for the last three years ending October 1977 @ Rs.110/per month, which rent was recovered by the previous trustees from the occupants of the suit house. Appellant No.1 sent a reply on 14 th November, 1977, disputing that he was a tenant or that he was liable to pay the rent to the respondent trust. He stated that he was living with his father who was paying the taxes of the suit house. It appears that the plaintiffs/respondents then caused to send another notice to defendant No.1 Wasudeo Pullarwar dated 12 th December, 1977, making a similar demand of rent from him, to which even he denied his liability to pay and also denied the title of the plaintiffs/respondents in respect of the suit house occupied by him. In this backdrop, the respondents filed a suit on 17 th October, 1978 for possession of the suit house from the defendants/appellants and for recovery of charges for occupation of the suit house during the relevant period. The suit for possession is thus based on title.      6. The appellants contested the suit by filing their written statement asserting that the plaintiffs/respondents have no locus to institute the suit; and the suit was not maintainable due to absence of permission of the Charity Commissioner for filing suit for possession of immoveable property allegedly belonging to a public trust. It was denied that Bansilal was the Wahiwatdar and was looking after the pujas and utsavas performed in the Math. It was then contended that the document allegedly executed by Smt. Yashodabai on 23 rd May, 1946 (Exh.41) was a sham and bogus document; and that one of the panchasRamjiwan Kaluram, was still alive, for which reason Chotelal could not claim to be an elected or nominated Sarpanch. Pertinently, it has been plainly stated in the written statement that the suit house occupied by the defendants was not the property shown at the time of registration of Shri Hanuman Deosthan, a public trust, and also, the same was not registered as the property of the said trust. The said trust was registered as a public trust with only two properties mentioned in schedule I thereof. One of the house properties in Circle No.3 was House No.55, which has had no causal connection with the suit house occupied by the defendants/appellants, bearing House No.878.      7. It is thus denied that the suit house is the property of the presiding deity of Shri Hanuman Deosthan. It is plainly asserted by the defendants/appellants that the suit house has been continuously and uninterruptedly occupied by them for over 30 years and the defendant No.1 was looking after and managing the same, including carrying out repairs and renovation, performing pujas and utasavas in the suit house as Wahiwatdar of the property and paying municipal taxes. It is the case of the appellants that the suit house was the property of a private trust and it originally belonged to saint Haridas Baba. Defendant No.1 was in possession of and had been the occupant of the property for over 30 years before the institution of the suit, as the Wahiwatdar. The appellants asserted that the respondent Trust was not the owner of the suit house and it had no causal connection therewith and in any case, could not oust the appellants/defendants from the suit house under the garb of a scheme framed on 4 th April, 1975 by the Deputy Commissioner (Exh.46). Accordingly, the appellants prayed that the suit ought to be dismissed with costs.      8. We may usefully reproduce paragraph 11 of the written statement which succinctly unveil the case of the appellants about their right to occupy the ?suit house? (i.e. H.No.878 in Circle No.3) and to reject the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents concerning the suit house or having any causal connection therewith leave apart having acquired any title in terms of the scheme framed for the public trust.      9. We deem it necessary to reproduce the whole of paragraph 11 of the written statement. For, the High Court has decided the matters in issue against the defendants/appellants only by referring to(b), (c) and (d) thereof, as reproduced in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment. Paragraph 11 readsb) Haridas was a great saint of his times. He died about 55 years ago. He took Samadhi. The suit house (Kuti) belonged to Haridas which was not a Math, Padukas of Haridas were not installed by Bansilal.(c) The suit house was bearing House No.143 and then it was changed as House No.492 and again this was changed as House No.104 in Cir. No.3, Nagpur. Owner of the suit house was Haridas Bairagi, the saint.(d) In this suit house Padukas of Haridas are installed. The plaintiff?s allegation that Bansilal was the Chief Wahiwatdar are denied. The puja and uttaav of the Padukas of Haridas used to be done by some disciples.(e) It is emphatically denied that the suit house was or is a Math. It is denied that Bansilal, yashodabai, Chhotelal, alleged Sarpanch or the alleged Panch names in the alleged Deed dated 3.5.1946 or the plaintiffs 1 to 5 were or are trustees. These above persons had or have no connection with the suit house or Padukas. The alleged Deed, if any, dated 3.5.1946 is null, void, illegal and invalid.(f) The suit house in circle No.3 at Nagpur and after it touching to it, is a publicth and its breadth is about 50 feetfrom the suit house. There are many houses to the north of the suit house upto Fuwara Chowk, From Chowk, anotherwhich is indirection passes to the west and after about 500 feet distance in separate locality of Cir. No.2 is a Hanuman Temple which has no connection to the suit house in Cir. No.3 Nagpur. Both are different localities.(g) It is denied that the defendants occupied the suit house about 12 years back as tenants from from former trustees or paid rent, as alleged. It is denied that the defendant occupied the suit house with any alleged permission of any alleged former trustee on rent of Rs.110/per month. The defendants are occupying the suit house as of right and are in continuous possession for more than 30 years as stated earlier openly, exclusively, peacefully peaceably, without interruption or disturbance from any one or from any alleged trustees and none of them have been in possession during such period. The defendant No.1 is about 83 years old. Defendants are „Pullarwar?. The suit house is not property of the plaintiff nor a public Trust property as is alleged. All the alleged Public Trust proceedings of whatever nature were without jurisdiction, null and void, under which the plaintiffs are trying to lay a claim to the suit house. There was no house No.55 alleged to the suit house; nor this was changed as House No.878. the plaintiffs? alleged claim for the suit house does not stand in fact or law as contended. In none of the alleged proceedings the defendants were made parties, norview of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed in all 11 issues, which readDo the plaintiffs prove the title of plaintiff No.1 to the suit house?      2) Do they prove that the deft. No.2 was occupying the same as a tenant?      3) Are the plffs. entitled to the occupation charges at the rate ofWhether the Charity Commissioner has declared that the suit house is trust property?      5) Does the deft. No.1 prove that he is occupying the suit house for more than 30 years and perfect his title by adverse Possession?      6) Do the defts. Prove that the house belongs to Mahadeo Domaji Kuthe?      7) Are the plffs. entitled to the possession?      8) What order and decree? Additional Issues:      9) Whether the house in suit was a Math?      10) Whether the document dated 3.5.46 is null and void      11) Whether the proceedings under the Bombay Public trust Act are withoutBoth sides produced documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective stands, which was duly considered by the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 16 th November, 1983. The Trial Court accepted the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents that the ?suit house? (i.e. H.No.878) was the property of the public trust, namely, Shri Hanuman Deosthan and the management of the property vested in the said trust. Further, the defendants/appellants had no right to occupy the suit house despite the Trial Court having found that they were occupying the same for over 30 years before the institution of the suit. On this finding, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit by directing the defendants/appellants to hand over vacant possession of the suit house to the plaintiffs/respondents, while rejecting their claim for occupation charges. The operative order passed by the Trial Court readse Plaintiff?s suit is decreed partly with proportionate costs. The defendants shall deliver vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff.The Plaintiffs claim for occupation charges is dismissed. An inquiry for future mesne profits under order 20, rule 12 Civil Procedure Code shall be carried separately. Decree be drawn accordingly in terms of the above order.The appellants being aggrieved, filed Regular Civil Appeal No.564 of 1983 before the District Court at Nagpur. The District Court, afterthe oral and documentary evidence, was pleased to reverse the finding of facts recorded by the Trial Court and instead, concluded that the ?suit house? (i.e. H.No.878) was not the registered property of Shri Hanuman Deosthan, a public trust duly registered under the 1950 Act.      12. The First Appellate Court considered the efficacy of the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs/respondents to establish its title in the suit house as also the documentary evidence. As regards the oral evidence, it found that the same was hopelessly poor and of persons who had no knowledge as to how Shri Hanuman Deosthan trust was constituted. Similarly, these persons had no knowledge whatsoever about saint Haridas Baba whose Padukas had been installed in the suit house. The person who could have spoken about those matters, namely Ramjiwan Kaluram, though available at the relevant time, was not examined as a witness, for reasons best known to the plaintiffs/respondents. While dissecting the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties in support of their claim, the appellate court in paragraphs 10 to 12 observedEven if for the sake of argument, Exh.41 is admitted in evidence and presumed that such a document was executed by Yashodabai, this document does not support the Plaintiffs. I will point out the help of other documents to show that this particular document Exh.41 pertains to the suit property but this suit property was never treated as property of the Plaintiff Trust since 1953 till this litigation started.11.Exh.63 is the certified copy of the application, dated 31 st August, 1953 filed by Chhotelal before the Registrar of the Public Trusts for registration as per order below Exh.42. In this application Chhotelal had shown two temple and a house No.374 and a house No.369 of Circle No.2 and one house No.55 of Circle No.3 as the property of the said trust and this property was recorded in the register of the property of the Public Trust maintained under the M.P. Public Trust Act. Exh.64 is application dated 13 th September, 1961 filed by Chhotelal for change report. In this also the same property has been shown as property of the said trust. After death of Chhotelal an application was made to the Deputy Charity Commissioner for framing a scheme for the management of the trust. After holding enquiry the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner passed an order, dated 4 th April, 1975 framing a scheme Exh.46 is a certified copy of that order. Annexure A to this order shows the property of the trust in the register of the Deputy Charity Commissioner. It means the two houses in Circle No.2 and a house No.55 of Circle No.3 were the only properties of the trust even in 1975 when the scheme for management of the trust was framed and when the present trustees were appointed.      12. The Defendants have throughout maintained that the plaintiff Trust has nothing to do with a suit house bearing Municipal No.152 situated in Circle No.3. In support of this, they have produced documents Exhs.56, 57 and 58 which are the certified copies of the relevant entries in the assessment register of the Municipal Corporation. I am told that the document Exh.56 was in more than one page but in the original record there appears only one page of the Assessment Register and it is incomplete. Therefore, today the Defendants have produced another certified copy of the same record and it is Exh.20. This record goes back toIt appears that originally the house of Haridas Bairagi was given Municipal No.443. It was situated in Circle No.3 Inhouse number was changed to 492. Init was given house No.104. In 1947 to 1950 its house number was 878. Init was house No.598 and it continued to be house No.598 till it was changed to 521 inand it continued to be house No.152 till the institution of the present suit. From this record it would be clear that during 1947 to 1950 its house number was 878. Exh.41 the document purporting to have been executed by Yashodabai also shows that the document was executed pertaining the house No.878 belonging to Haridas Baba. As per this record, number of this house continued to be 878 tillwhen the number was changed to 598, while in 1953 and againChhotelal had shown house No.55 of Circle No.3 as a property of Hanuman Deosthan. In this suit we are not concerned with the other properties of Hanuman Deosthan situated in Circle No.2 Exh.57 and 58 is the record pertaining house No.55 of Circle No.3. this record shows that house No.55 of Circle No.3 was the property of temple of Radhakishna and Ganpati and on behalf of that Temple one Ramlal Munnalal Halwai was shown to be proprietor. This record is available from 1947 onwards. This particular property bears house No.55 from 1947 tillFrom this it is clear that the house No.55 of Circle No.3 is totally different from the suit house which was the property of Haridas Bairagi. It is fairly conceded before me by Mr. Ghatpnde that temple of Radhakrishna and Ganpati may be different institution than the property of Haridas Baba. In 1952 when for the first time Hanuman Deosthan was registered as trust on application of Chhotelal, house No.55 was different from the suit house which was bearing No.878 at that time. It is conceded that there is no documentary evidence to establish that the suit house was the property of the Plaintiff. The aforesaid view taken by the First Appellate Court and, in particular, the findings of fact recorded on material issues came to be reversed by the High Court in the second appeal, filed by the respondents. Initially, the said Second Appeal No.364 of 1990, was allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur, without framing any substantial question of law, vide judgment and order dated 29 th March, 2004. That judgment was set aside by this Court on 17 th December, 2004 in SLP (C) No.10181/2004, at the instance of the defendants/appellants. The parties were relegated to the High Court for fresh consideration of the second appeal. The learned Single Judge of the High Court hearing the remanded appeal adverted to two substantial questions of law as formulated in paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment, which read asWhether the findings recorded by the authorities under the Bombay Public Trusts Act about the existence of the trust and the trust property were final and conclusive and/or whether the appellate Court had justification to hold that the suit property did not belong to the trust?      2. Whether the admission of the defendants that the suit property was originally owned by Haridad Baba and that they had entered in possession thereof in the capacity of caretaker of the suit property were binding on the defendants so as to establish that the property in question was part of the property originally owned by Haridas Baba with respect to which the public trust wasBy the impugned judgment and order dated 24 th October, 2008, the High Court allowed the second appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents and restored the decree of possession passed by the Trial Court. The High Court first analysed the pleadings and noted that the defendants/appellants in no uncertain terms admitted that saint Haridas Baba is the owner of the suit house and that his Padukas were installed in the suit house and were worshiped by his disciples. It then found that it was common ground that Haridas Baba was the original owner of the suit house and his disciples were taking care of the Math after his death. The High Court further noted that Bansilal never claimed to be the owner of the suit house but only a trustee, who directed Smt. Yashodabai to appoint a panch committee to look after the affairs of the Math if need be. The panch committee appointed by Smt. Yashodabai was nothing but a board of trustees, as was evident from the document creating the panch committee dated 23 rd May, 1946 (Exh.41).      15. The High Court then noted that the defendants? witnessVijay in his evidence admitted that the ownership of the suit house was of Haridas Baba and that the defendants/appellants, along with other family members, were living therein as disciples of Haridas Baba and did not set up title in themselves at all. It appears that Haridas Baba, who was the owner of the suit house, dedicated the property and created a private trust, which fact has been admitted by the defendants/appellants in the written statement. On that basis, the High Court went on to conclude that the defendants/appellants admitted that the suit house was a trust property and therefore, it must be assumed to have been dedicated by Haridas Baba. After having said this, the High Court then went on to examine the question as to whether the suit house was a property belonging to Shri Hanuman Deosthan, a public trust. While considering this issue, the High Court took note of the fact that the registered property of the Hanuman Deosthan public trust did not include the description of the suit house namely House No.878 in Circle No.3. The suit house belonging to the public trust was registered as House No.55 in Circle No.3. The High Court ?assumed? this to be a case ofof the trust property in the register of the public trust. Accordingly, the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court on material issues came to be reversed by the High Court on the followingWe have already seen that defendants do not deny the description of the suit property. They do not say that they are in possession of any other property than the suit property. They admit that suit property was owned by Haridas. I have already quoted the evidence of D.W.1 Vijay in verbatim in which he admits that the assessment list Exh.56 is in respect of the suit house. Exh.56 shows that house was recorded in the name of Haridas. InVijay admits that the house number of the suit propertyDefendant No.1 had made an application to the Municipal Council vide Exh.75. He raised an objection to recording the name of Hanuman Deosthan as owner in the Municipal records. He claimed that he was the Wahiwatdar and was paying taxes and also brought to the notice of the Municipal Council that this house is not entered in the register of public trust. He also alleges that name of the trust is changed from Haridas to Hanuman Deosthan and that the old name be retained. This clearly goes to show that defendants in fact knew that the suit house belongs to Hanuman Deosthan Trust. It is registered in the Municipal Record as such and he wanted that name of the Hanuman Deosthan be removed and that he was ready to pay the taxes. All this evidence clearly goes to show that the defendants know that the suit property is entered in the name of plaintiff trust and they are claiming possession of that property alone. With this document there is no manner of doubt that the suit property is owned by the plaintiff public trust. Defendants admission must bind them. The learned Judge of the first appellate Court did not consider the evidence in proper perspective. He erred in negativing the claim of plaintiff because the correct description of the suit property is not given in the trust register. He should have independently considered if the suit property is owned by plaintiffs.The High Court then negatived the preliminary objection that the entire appeal had abated as the legal representatives of legal representative Nos. 1 and 2 of the deceased defendant No.1 were not brought on record. The High Court took the view that since the stand of the defendant No.1 was that he was occupying the suit house only as Wahiwatdar, his rights as Wahiwatdar ended upon his death. For, the right of Wahiwatdar could not be claimed as hereditary. The High Court thus concluded that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents could still proceed on the aforesaid basis. Accordingly, the High Court reversed the decision of the First Appellate Court and restored the decree passed by the Trial Court for delivery of possession of the suit house by the defendants/appellants to the plaintiffs/respondents. This decision is the subject matter of the challenge in the present appeal.

Reasoning:
Indubitably, the present suit is a suit for recovery of possession of the subject property on the basis of title claimed therein by the plaintiffs/respondents and being a property of the trust. However, the procedure envisaged under Sections 50 and 51, obviously, has not been complied with. For, such permission has not been produced nor adverted to by the courts below.Be that as it may, as the plaintiffs/respondents have claimed title in the suit property, that claim could be answered on the basis of the registration application of the trust, and schedule I regarding the registered properties of the trust. Whether the property is a property of the trust and including the question as to whether it should be so recorded as the property of the trust, is a matter exclusively within the domain of the Charity Commissioner.In the present case, the registration application preferred by Chotelal unambiguously records House No.55 in Circle No.3 as being used for performing pujas in the temple. The temple name is mentioned as Shri Hanuman Deosthan. There is no reference in the application or in schedule I recording the properties of the stated public trust to include the ?Padukas of Haridas Baba? installed in House No.878 in Circle No.3. Concededly, no evidence is forthcoming to show that Hanuman Temple exists in House No.878 in Circle No.3which is inpossession of the defendants/appellants.Suffice it to observe that the application for registration of the public trust submitted by Chotelal on 31 st August, 1953 (Exh.63), the subsequent application for registration submitted by him under the provisions of the 1950 Act dated 13 th September, 1961 (Exh.64), the schedule I recording properties of the plaintiff public trust (Exh.43), the enquiry report dated 13 th October, 1954 (Exh.42), and the application for framing of the scheme and the order passed by the Charity Commissioner dated 4 th April, 1975 (Exh.46), none of these document mention about ?Padukas of Haridas Baba? installed in House No.878 or refer to House No.878 in Circle No.3 being the trust property; but instead, make specific reference to House No.55 in Circle No.3, which is a completely different property. Notably, these documents also do not advert to the document dated 23 rd May, 1946 (Exh.41), purportedly executed by Smt. Yashodabai allegedly creating a Panch Committee in respect of the suit House No.878 in Circle No.3. The finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court regarding the two properties and, more particularly, analysis in paragraphs 11 & 12 of its judgment (reproduced in paragraph No. 12 herein above), have been brushed aside by the High Court on the specious asumption that it is a case ofof the property in the official register of public trust. That, however, was not the case pleaded much less proved by the plaintiffs/respondents. Such finding recorded by the High Court is a case of manifest error or error apparent, if not perverse. The High Court could not have disregarded the registration application and the description of the house number given in schedule I as the registered property of the public trust, which is House No.55 in Circle No.3. It was for the plaintiffs/respondents to plead and prove that House No.55 shown in schedule I as property of the plaintiff trust is the same as House No.878 in Circle No.3, which description has been given in the plaint as the suit house. Having failed to establish that fact, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, that Shri Hanuman Deosthan, a public trust, had no causal connection with House No.878 in Circle No.3 occupied by the defendants/appellants. Thus, it must necessarily follow that the suit for possession (of House No.878 in Circle No.3) instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents on the basis of title, was devoid of merits.We have no hesitation in upholding the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court that the suit house occupied by the defendants/appellants was recorded in the Municipal records during 1947 to 1950 as House No.878 belonging to Haridas Baba and that number was changed to House No.521 inand converted to House No.152 till the institution of the present suit. Further, it is clear that House No.55 in Circle No.3 is entirely a different property. That has been registered as the trust property of Shri Hanuman Deosthan public trust, initially at the instance of Chotelal and then continued to be shown as a registered property of the plaintiff trust until the institution of the suit. Such registration by the authorities under the 1950 Act would bind the plaintiffs/respondents. The plaintiffs/respondents have not been able to produce any documentary evidence to establish the fact that the suit house (bearing House No.878 in Circle No.3, which later on became House No.152 in Circle No.3 by the time the suit was instituted), was the property of the plaintiff trust. The concomitant of such a conclusion is to dismiss the suit.It is not necessary for us to dilate on every aspect dealt with by the First Appellate Court or for that matter, the High Court, for answering the substantial question of law under consideration. We affirm the conclusion reached by the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff trust had failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate the fact that suit House No.878 in Circle No.3 was the registered property of the plaintiff trust and that the registered property of the plaintiff trust bearing House No.55 in Circle No.3, is the same house inpossession of the defendants/appellants.Pertinently, the latter property was not owned by Haridas Baba but belonged to one Ramlal Munnalal Halwai, having a temple of Radhakrishna and Ganpati. Further, the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs/respondents would, at best, establish the fact that Shri Hanuman Deosthan has been registered as a public trust and owns the property referred to in schedule I against its name (i.e. House No.55 in Circle No.3). Thus, the property registered as belonging to the plaintiff trust was other than suit house bearing No.878 in Circle No.3. For all these reasons, the First Appellate Court was justified in answering the principal issue against the plaintiff trust.That takes us to the second substantial question of law formulated by the High Court for its consideration. The High Court has adverted to the relevant portion of the written statement to conclude that the defendants/appellants had admitted that the suit property was originally owned by Haridas Baba and that they were in possession in the capacity of caretakers only. Indeed, that admission can be discerned from the written statement of the defendants as well as the oral evidence ofBut that admission does not take the matter any further. It is not possible to assume on the basis of that admission that the ?suit house? (i.e. House No.878 in Circle No.3) is the property of the plaintiff trust. No documentary evidence has been produced by the plaintiffs/respondents to establish the fact that the suit house bearing House No.878 in Circle No.3 originally owned by Haridas Baba was recorded as the property of the plaintiff trust in the official records. The plea taken by the defendants in the written statement, however, is indicative of the fact that they (defendants/appellants) were occupying House No.878 in Circle No.3, which was originally owned by Haridas Baba and where his Padukas had been installed. The written statement as well as the oral evidence of defendants/appellants clearly refute the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents. In that, the trust named as Shri Hanuman Deosthan has been registered in reference to some other properties and for performing puja with the object of maintaining Hanuman Deosthan temple in House No.55 in Circle No.3. We also find that the High Court has selectively adverted to portion of the written statement(b) to (d) of paragraph 11 thereof] and not to the other portion of the same paragraph, namely(e) to (g) (reproduced in paragraph 9 hereinabove) which put across the stand of the defendants/appellants including that the plaintiff trust has no causal connection with the suit house bearing No.878 in Circle No.3.Needless to observe that the plaintiffs/respondents were primarily obliged to establish their title in the suit house bearing No.878 in Circle No.3 where the Padukas of Saint Haridas Baba have been installed, as being the property of the plaintiff trust. The plaintiffs must succeed or fail on the title they establish; and if they fail to do so, they must fail to get the relief of possession irrespective of title of the defendant in the suit property (See Brahma Nand Puri Vs. Naki Puri3 and Bajaranglal Shivchandrai Ruia Vs. Shashikant N. Ruia and Ors.). In the present case, no tangible evidence regarding title of plaintiff trust in the suit house (House No.878 in Circle No.3) is forthcoming.The High Court has also adverted to theadmission given byVijay, noted in paragraph No.12 of the impugned judgment. In our opinion, the High Court has completely misread the said admission. Inasmuch as, all it says is that the house number had changed every four years after revaluation. Further, the suit house is in Circle No.3. This is spoken by the witness (DW1), in response to the question posed to him about the change of Circle. He then admits that since 1910, the suit house was owned by Haridas Bairagi. We fail to understand as to how this admission can be of any avail to the plaintiffs much less to hold that the plaintiff(1965) 2 SCR4) 5 SCC 272  trust has title in the suit house bearing House No.878 in Circle No.3.Much ado was made about the contents of a communication sent by defendant No.1 to the Mayor of Nagpur Municipal Corporation (Exh.75). The same reads thus:he Mayor, Nagpur Municipal Corporation Wasudeorao Maniramji Pullarwar, Occupier Baba Haridasji Math, House No.152, Ward No.6 New Ward No.16, S. No.03, New Shukrawari, Fawara Chowk, Medical Road, Nagpur. …..ApplicantSubject: Objection to mutation on house No.152, Ward No.16 circle No.03, New SShukrawari, Fawara Chowk, Medical Road, Nagpur.With respect, it submitted that house no.152, Ward No.16 New Shukrawari Nagpur is recorded in the name of Baba Haridas Math in the Nagpur Municipal Corporation assessment register for the last 70 years. The applicant is the disciple of Baba Haridas for the last 60 years and is in possession and occupation of it for last 30 years. He is looking after the Math and performing pooja/ustsav on yearly basis (yearly Utsav). I am paying the taxes of the said math for the last 30 years as occupier and user. The receipts to that effect are with me. The demand bill for the year 197879 for taxes is given to the applicant. From that it has come to the knowledge of the applicant that the said house is recorded in the name of ?Shri Hanuman Deosthan Trust?. Then it is mentioned that the said change is as per the decision of Learned Charity Commissioner, Mumbai dated 4.4.1975 and the same is recorded on 15.7.1976 in the name of Hanuman Deosthan Trust. However, in the office or register of Charity Commissioner, Mumbai or Deputy Charity Commissioner, Nagpur dated 4.4.1975, there is no reference/mention about Shri Haridas Baba Math, House No.152, Ward No.16, Circle No.3, New Shukrawari, Nagpur nor there is any reference in the copy received by me.Hence, the Hanuman Deosthan Trust has got the name changed from Haridas Baba Math to Hanuman Deosthan Trust by keeping the tax department in the dark, fraudulently. The change is recorded by the assessment department of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation without consulting or asking the applicant. The said change is not acceptable to the applicant.Hence, the original name of Baba Haridas Math should be maintained. Accordingly, the applicant is ready to pay the taxes as earlier.Also the Hanuman Deosthan Trust has got the change done by keeping the Corporation in the dark. It has no relation with the math.Hence, the name of the said Trust be removed and original name of Baba Haridas Math be maintained. The applicant be given opportunity to produce his documents and say before yourself.Nagpur Dated: 17.3.1980We fail to understand as to how this communication can be used as an admission of the defendants much less of having accepted the title of the plaintiff trust in the suit House No.878 (renumbered as House No.152), in Circle No.3. On the other hand, it is a representation made to assail the unilateral alteration of mutation entry in favour of Shri Hanuman Deosthan Trust in violation of principles natural justice.Suffice it to observe that even the second substantial question of law must be answered against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants/appellants.