Ghaibi Peer Masjid vs Garib Buwa Deul Sansthan

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

This appeal filed under Section 72(4) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short the said Act) takes exception to the judgment dated 26.10.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Washim confirming the orders passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad and by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, Akola in proceedings under Section 19 of the said Act.

The dispute between the parties is with respect of registration of a Masjid and a Temple. Application No. 362 of 1976 came to be filed for registration of a Masjid on the ground that the property in question was a Masjid and the same was therefore required to be registered. Another Application No. 255 of 1977 came to be filed claiming that a Temple be duly registered being in existence at the site in question. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner by order dated 18.01.1979 recorded a finding that there was a Mosque in existence having an area of 18'' x 18'' at village Gaiwal and hence it was directed to be registered as a public trust. Similarly, it was held that a Temple was standing in the area of 10'' x 10'' at village Gaiwal and same was also directed to be registered as a public trust. This order came to be challenged before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner in two appeals filed by the respective parties. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner by judgment dated 12.11.1986 dismissed both the applications and confirmed the order passed by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. Thereafter two appeals were filed before the District Court and by the impugned judgment both the appeals came to be dismissed.

Shri S.Z. Qazi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the authorities under the said Act as well as the learned District Judge erred in directing registration of the Temple as a trust property. According to him there was no sufficient evidence existing on record to hold that the structure admeasuring 10'' x 10'' was a temple. He, therefore, submitted that the authorities by directing registration of the temple, had done so without sufficient evidence being available on record.

There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents though the appeal was heard for sometime on various dates.

I have considered the submissions as urged and I have gone through the records of the case. It is to be noted that the present appeal has been filed under the provisions of Section 72(4) of the said Act. It is well settled that appeal under Section 72(4) should give rise to some substantial question of law.

The contentions as urged on behalf of the appellants are based on appreciation of evidence to urge that the findings recorded in that regard regarding existence of temple and directions to register it as a public trust are illegal. The record indicates that sufficient evidence was led by both the parties and after perusing the same, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner and thereafter the learned Joint Charity Commissioner held that registration of the temple was justified in the facts of case. This finding have been confirmed by the learned Additional District Judge after re-appreciating the evidence. Considering the fact that these findings have been recorded on the basis of evidence available on record, the same does not give rise to any substantial question of law. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. There being no merit whatsoever in the appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.