AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant, who is defendant no.6 in the civil suit, has filed the present civil revision challenging the order dated 01.07.2026 passed by 22nd Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No.115-A of 2021, whereby her application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been rejected.
The respondent no.1/plaintiff is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “BPT Act”). The trust was constituted as per the trust deed dated 14.06.1952.
The trust filed a suit against the defendants seeking a declaration of its title over the suit property and recovery of possession thereof from the defendants. It has also claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month from the date of filing of the suit till delivery of possession. The aforesaid reliefs have been prayed for primarily on the ground that the suit property, situated at Lashkar, Gwalior, is owned by the trust and is commonly known as Rukma Bai Mandir. It is averred that the defendants are occupying the ground floor and first floor of the building as encroachers. In paragraph 3, it is averred that, even if the defendants claim to be tenants, they are liable to be evicted from the suit property. The trust has also averred that, by virtue of notifications dated 07.09.1989 and 12.07.2019 issued under Section 3(2) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, it is exempted from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1961.
The suit was filed on 22.01.2021. As informed by learned counsel for respondent no.1 and also gathered from the averments made in paragraph 1 of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the plaintiff's evidence (cross-examination) has already commenced. At this stage, the applicant/defendant no.6 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds.
In the present civil revision, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that, under Sections 50 & 51 of the BPT Act, the suit could be filed only after obtaining permission from the Charity Commissioner and that it is also mandatory to implead the Charity Commissioner as a defendant. It is also submitted that, under Section 32 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, the suit is barred.
The respondent no.1/plaintiff has entered appearance suo motu and has consented to the revision being heard finally. Further, for purposes of this revision, only respondent no.1 is the interested party.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1, at the outset, raised an objection with regard to the conduct of the defendants. He pointed out that initially defendant no.3 & 4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC raising an objection with regard to non-payment of ad valorem court fees. This application was rejected on 09.05.2022. Another application was filed by defendant no.3 & 4 seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that no permission from the Charity Commissioner has been obtained for filing of suit. This application was disposed of by the trial Court on 22.04.2024, directing that the issue shall be decided after recording the evidence of the parties. He further pointed out that another application was filed by defendant no.6 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that permission from the Charity Commissioner had not been obtained. This application was also disposed of vide order dated 04.08.2026 in view of the order already passed on 22.04.2024. The present applicant thereafter filed another application seeking dismissal of the suit on the same ground of not obtaining permission from the Charity Commissioner relying upon Section 50 & 51 of BPT Act and also that the suit is not maintainable under Section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act. This application also stood rejected vide the impugned order dated 01.07.2026. He thus submits that the defendants are unnecessarily dragging the suit proceedings by filing similar applications one after another.
On merits, learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Section 50 & 51 of the BPT Act are not applicable in cases where the suit is filed by the trust itself. As per this submission, the provisions would apply in case suit is filed by the person, other than the Trust and the trustees. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Shree Hari Ashram through Trustees v. Vijay Jayantilal Patel and another , reported in 2025 SCC Online Bom. 3627 .
Regarding Section 32 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act, learned counsel placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. Krishna Mohan Mohannath Raina and others, reported in 1968 MPLJ 545. He thus submitted that both the grounds raised by the applicant seeking rejection of the plaint are not sustainable in law and deserve to be rejected.
Considered the arguments and perused the record.
It is gathered that the defendants are members of the same family. The present applicant has been substituted as the legal heir of the initial defendant no.1, Smt. Narmada Devi Solanki. The similar objections have already been filed by defendant no.3 & 4 and then by defendant no.6. The trial Court postponed the decision on the issues after recording of evidence. These orders appears to have not been challenged by concerned defendants. Similar application is filed by present application that too at the stage when plaintiff cross-examination has already commenced. In such circumstances, the objection raised by learned counsel for respondent no.1 seems to be justified. The similar applications are being filed by one after other for purposes of delaying the suit proceedings.
From the submissions made by learned counsel for parties, the issue raised is purely legal and can be decided at this stage itself without waiting for recording of evidence.
Section 50 of the BPT Act provides for filing of a suit by or against, or relating to, public trusts, trustees or others. It reads as under:
50.In any case,-
(i)where it is alleged that there is a breach of a public trust,
(ii)where a direction is required to recover possession of a property belonging to a public trust or the proceeds thereof or for an account of such property or proceeds from any person including a person holding adversely to the public trust, or
(iii)where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any public trust, the Charity Commissioner after making such enquiry as he thinks necessary or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner as provided in section 51 may institute a suit whether contentions or not in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree for any of the following reliefs:-
(a)an order for the recovery of the possession of such property 96 or proceeds thereof,
(b)the removal of any trustee or manager,
(c)the appointment of a new trustee or manager, 97
(cc)vesting any property in a trustee,
(d)a direction for taking accounts and making certain inquiries,
(e)a declaration as to what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust,
(f)a direction authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged,
(g)the settlement of a scheme or variations or alterations in a scheme already settled, or
(h)granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require:
Provided that no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified in this section shall be instituted in respect of any public trust except in conformity with the provisions thereof:
Provided further that the Charity Commissioner may, instead of instituting a suit, make an application to the Court for a variation or alteration in a scheme already settled.
Further, Section 51 provides for obtaining the consent of the Charity Commissioner for institution of a suit, and it reads as under:
51.Consent of Charity Commissioner for institution of suit .— (1) If the persons having an interest in any public trust intend to file a suit of the nature specified in section 50, they shall apply to the Charity Commissioner in writing for his consent. The Charity Commissioner, after hearing the parties and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, may within a period of six months from the date on which the application is made, grant or refuse his consent to the institution of such suit. The order of the Charity Commissioner refusing his consent shall be in writing and shall state the reasons for the refusal.
(2)If the Charity Commissioner refuses his consent to the institution of the suit under sub-section (1), the persons applying for such consent may file an appeal to the Revenue Tribunal constituted under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1939 (Bombay XII of 1939), in the manner provided by this Act.
(3)In every suit filed by persons having interest in any trust under section 50, the Charity Commissioner shall be a necessary party.
(4)Subject to the decision of the Revenue Tribunal in appeal under section 71, the decision of the Charity Commissioner under sub-section (1) shall be final and conclusive.”
Normally, a legal owner of a property is entitled to file a suit for recovery of possession of his property from a trespasser and no permission from anyone is required. In cases of public trust, the suit can be filed by trust through its trustees or by the trustees. Section 50 & 51 of the BPT Act, however, creates a right to sue in favour of additional classes of persons, in addition to the trustees. Firstly, these provisions permit the Charity Commissioner to institute a suit, in the event he finds that the trustees have failed to perform their duties in recovering possession of trust property. Secondly, a third category is also given the right to sue for recovery of possession of trust property from a trespasser. Such third-category is “two or more persons having an interest in the trust”.
A reading of the provisions of Section 50 makes it clear that it is only for this "two or more persons having an interest in the trust" that the requirement of securing the consent of the Charity Commissioner in the manner provided under Section 51 of the BPT Act, is necessary. When the suit is filed by the trust itself, no such permission is envisaged under Sections 50 or 51 of the Act. The provision apparently has been made to ensure that a random person does not sue a trespasser on behalf of the trust. In such a case, the Charity Commissioner is required to conduct an inquiry under Section 51 of the BPT Act and, only after he is satisfied that the two or more persons claiming an interest in the trust can be granted permission to sue for recovery of trust property, the Charity Commissioner grant such permission. Thus, the objection raised by the applicant/defendant no.5 seems to be based upon a misreading of the provisions of Sections 50 & 51 of the BPT Act.
A similar issue came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in the case of Shree Hari Ashram, ( supra). Dealing with the issue, the Bombay High Court held in paragraphs 25 & 26 as under:
"25.In Nadiad Nagarpalika, Nadiad the Defendants therein had raised a similar objection that permission or written consent of Charity Commissioner was necessary for recovery of possession of property belonging to Public Trust from the Defendants who was holding adversely to Public Trust. The Gujarat High Court however, held that Section 50 of the GPT Act is merely an enabling provision and ordinarily trustees as legal owners alone are able to file Suits for recovery of possession of Trust properties. The Court held that Charity Commissioner can himself file a Suit for recovery of possession of Trust property from trespasser. Additionally, the beneficiaries who are interested in securing possession of Trust property under the guise of their interest in Trust property can also file such a suit subject to grant of permission by Charity Commissioner to institute such suit. Thus, Gujarat High Court in Nadiad Nagarpalika, Nadiad has held that trustees as legal owners can file a suit for recovery of Trust property without securing permission of Charity Commissioner. As observed above the judgment in Nadiad Nagarpalika, Nadiad after taking into consideration of Section 50 of the BPT Act, as applicable to the State of Gujarat and has been relied upon by Division Bench of this Court in Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta & Ors. (supra) which in turn has been relied upon that learned Single Judge of this Court in Plaintiff 's own case in Shri Hari k 20/28 3 ia 4436.25 in s os.doc Ashram (supra). In my view therefore the judgment rendered by this Court in Plaintiff 's own case is reason enough for rejecting the objection raised by Defendant No.1
26.Additionally, in Amirchand Tulshiram Gupta & Ors. the Division Bench of this Court has made a detailed discussion on the scheme of Section 50 of the MPT Act. The Division Bench relied upon previous decision of Division Bench in Gurusiddappa Tipanna Mugeri vs. Miraj Education Society, Miraj, in which it is held that trustee is a legal owner of Trust property and enjoying all the rights inherent in a natural owner of the property and can sue to recover Trust property and Section 50 of MPT Act cannot apply as a bar to substantive right of Trustee to institute Suit. The Division Bench further held that the provisions of Section 92 of the Code are analogous to the provisions of Section 50 of MPT Act and that separate right of a Trustee dehors provisions of Section 50 of the MPT Act to file a suit for protection of Trust properties cannot be disputed. The Division Bench also held that provisions of Section 50 of the MPT Act are not restrictive but cumulative and it only entitles a person having an interest to sue and does not prohibit any suit being filed by the Trustee of the Public Trust. In Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta & Ors. (supra) the Division Bench thus held that Section 50 of the MPT Act is not a bar for Trustees to institute a suit in exercise of their common law rights."
The aforesaid appears to a settled legal position by Bombay High Court inasmuch as the Division Bench of Bombay high Court in the case of Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta & ors. vs. Vasant Dhanaji Patil & ors. reported in 1992 SCC Online Bom. 4, has already laid down this proposition which has been recently relied upon in the case of Shree Hari Ashram, (supra).
In view of the aforesaid analysis of Sections 50 & 51 of BPT Act, this Court fully concurs with the opinion of the Bombay High Court. The objection of learned senior counsel for applicant stands rejected.
So far as the objection with regard to the bar against filing of the suit under Section 32 of the M.P. Public Trusts Act is concerned, the said issue is also no more res integra, as the same has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad, (supra). Dealing with the issue, the Division Bench held as under:
So far as the first point is concerned, it will be noticed that the plaintiff Trust is situate at Itawah in Uttar Pradesh and it is registered under the Societies Registration Act (No. 21) of 1860. Section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 undoubtedly provides that "no suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which has not been registered under this Act shall be heard or decided by any Court". This section, however, shall be attracted in case of those Trusts only which have to be registered under that Act. The Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, being a State Act, cannot have any extra-territorial jurisdiction and it is for this reason that the scheme of jurisdiction in the Act is confined to Trusts operating in Madhya Pradesh. Section 3 of the Act provides that "the Collector shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office or the principal place of business of which is situate in his district". This provision makes it clear that in case of public trusts, which have their "principal office" or "principal place of business" outside the State of Madhya Pradesh, registration is not necessary for the simple reason that Collector in Madhya Pradesh will be competent to perform the functions of a Registrar in respect of such a trust. Section 4 requires every working trustee to make an application to the Registrar having jurisdiction for registration of the trust. In the instant case, as the office of the trust was situate in Itawah in Uttar Pradesh, no application was required from the trustees thereof for registration of the trust in Madhya Pradesh, as no such application would lie to any of the several Registrars in Madhya Pradesh, Reading the provisions in the Act, we have no doubt that trusts, whose principal office is outside the State of Madhya Pradesh, do not require registration under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 and Section 32 of that Act is not a bar to the institution of suits by such trusts.
Thus, this objection of learned senior counsel for applicant is also not acceptable and is accordingly rejected.
The applicant has filed I.A. No.7712 of 2026 seeking amendment of the civil revision by incorporating a challenge to the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application filed by defendant no.3 & 4 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was disposed of. Now, since this Court has already rejected the objections raised by the applicant, the application has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly rejected.
In view of the discussion made above, both the objections raised by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant are not acceptable. The suit is, therefore, not liable to be rejected on the grounds raised by the applicant in the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The learned trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application. Consequently, the objections are overruled and the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by the applicant/defendant No. 6 stands rejected.
The present civil revision also stands dismissed.