Mahant Ranjitsinghji Chelsinghji & Ors. Vs. The Charity Commissioner & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 839 & 840 of 1974.
Petitioner: Mahant Ranjitsinghji Chelsinghji & Ors.
Respondent: The Charity Commissioner & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 839 & 840 of 1974.
Judges: M.P. THAKKAR & N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 16, 1988
Head Note:
BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUST ACT, 1950:
Section 72 – Whether a Letters Patent Appeal is competent against a judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court in a matter arising out of a revision under Section 72? – No Letters Patent Appeal is competent – Decision of the Court in JT 1987(2) SC 221 followed.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 133 – Certificate granted in respect of question of law raised before the High Court as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal is competent or not – Questions as to the properties belonging to the public trust – These are questions of fact and whether it is a public trust or not is not a question which can now be agitated before the Court.
Cases Reffered:
Ram Chandra Goverdhan Pandit v. Charity Commissioner,JT 1987(2) SC 221 = AIR 1987 SC 1598.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
C.A. No. 839 of 1974:
1. This is an appeal by a Certificate of fitness under Art. 133 of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Gujarat, limited to the question as to whether a Letters Patent Appeal is competent against a judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court in a matter arising out of a revision under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, preferred against a decision of the Deputy Charity Commissioner exercising his powers under Bombay Public Trust Act. The Certificate was granted in view of the conflict between the decisions of the Gujarat High Court (13 GLR 181) on the one hand and the decision of the Bombay High Court (75 BLR 523) on the other. The High Court following its earlier decision dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal as incompetent but granted the Certificate of fitness. This conflict has now been resolved by this Court in RAM CHANDRA GOVERDHAN PANDIT VS. CHARITY COMMISSIONER (AIR 1987 SC 1598) wherein the view of the Gujarat High Court has been upheld that no Letters Patent Appeal is competent. Hence this appeal deserves to fail.
2. In so far as the substantial issue in the matter as to whether the temple in question known as Vairagini Wadi situated in the town of Siddhpur is concerned, the Deputy Charity Commissioner recorded a finding to the effect that it was a public trust. The Charity Commissioner in appeal confirmed the finding that it was a public trust but modified the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner in so far as one particular property was concerned holding that particular property did not belong to the temple. This order was confirmed by the District Court in revision. Learned Single Judge has also confirmed the finding that the temple was a public trust and all the properties excepting one particular property were the properties belonging to the public trust. All these are questions of fact and whether it is a public trust or not is not a question which can now be agitated in this Court particularly having regard to the fact that the Certificate has been granted solely in the context of the question of law raised before the High Court, as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal was not competent. The decision of the learned Single Judge has become final and conclusive. No exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Charity Commissioner as confirmed by the learned District Court and learned Single Judge. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
C.A. No. 840 of 1974:
3. So far as this appeal is concerned, it arises out of the litigation between the same parties. It appears that during the pendency of the matter, a Scheme has been framed by the competent authority for the administration of the public trust. That Scheme has been confirmed by the High Court. The present appeal by Certificate of Fitness arises only in view of the question of law debated before the High Court as to whether Letters Patent Appeal was competent. The question has already been resolved against the appellant as observed earlier. Under the circumstances, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
Appeals dismissed.
C.A. No. 839 of 1974:
1. This is an appeal by a Certificate of fitness under Art. 133 of the Constitution granted by the High Court of Gujarat, limited to the question as to whether a Letters Patent Appeal is competent against a judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court in a matter arising out of a revision under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, preferred against a decision of the Deputy Charity Commissioner exercising his powers under Bombay Public Trust Act. The Certificate was granted in view of the conflict between the decisions of the Gujarat High Court (13 GLR 181) on the one hand and the decision of the Bombay High Court (75 BLR 523) on the other. The High Court following its earlier decision dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal as incompetent but granted the Certificate of fitness. This conflict has now been resolved by this Court in RAM CHANDRA GOVERDHAN PANDIT VS. CHARITY COMMISSIONER (AIR 1987 SC 1598) wherein the view of the Gujarat High Court has been upheld that no Letters Patent Appeal is competent. Hence this appeal deserves to fail.
2. In so far as the substantial issue in the matter as to whether the temple in question known as Vairagini Wadi situated in the town of Siddhpur is concerned, the Deputy Charity Commissioner recorded a finding to the effect that it was a public trust. The Charity Commissioner in appeal confirmed the finding that it was a public trust but modified the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner in so far as one particular property was concerned holding that particular property did not belong to the temple. This order was confirmed by the District Court in revision. Learned Single Judge has also confirmed the finding that the temple was a public trust and all the properties excepting one particular property were the properties belonging to the public trust. All these are questions of fact and whether it is a public trust or not is not a question which can now be agitated in this Court particularly having regard to the fact that the Certificate has been granted solely in the context of the question of law raised before the High Court, as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal was not competent. The decision of the learned Single Judge has become final and conclusive. No exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the Charity Commissioner as confirmed by the learned District Court and learned Single Judge. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
C.A. No. 840 of 1974:
3. So far as this appeal is concerned, it arises out of the litigation between the same parties. It appears that during the pendency of the matter, a Scheme has been framed by the competent authority for the administration of the public trust. That Scheme has been confirmed by the High Court. The present appeal by Certificate of Fitness arises only in view of the question of law debated before the High Court as to whether Letters Patent Appeal was competent. The question has already been resolved against the appellant as observed earlier. Under the circumstances, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.
Appeals dismissed.
