Judgment:
ORDER
A. M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, J. D., Pune dated 24.11.1992 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1447 of 1989.
2. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, J. D., Pune being Regular Civil Suit No. 1447 of 1989, inter alia. praying for a declaration that the suit property is owned by Yasin Zuk Darga and Kabrastan and is not a private property of the petitioners herein.
3. It is not necessary to refer to all the events mentioned in the said suit, for the same are not relevant for the adjudication of the present case. The relevant facts for deciding this petition are that the matter went right upto the Apex Court against the interlocutory order where the Apex Court by order dated 30.7.1991 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3027 and 3028 of 1991 directed the Trial Court to deal with the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary Issue, if warranted by the pleadings, and dispose of the matter as urgently as possible.
4. After the above said directions, the Trial Court framed preliminary issue which reads thus :
'Whether this Court has Jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?'
5. At this stage it is relevant to note that there was serious dispute about the title in respect of the suit property. The owners approached the Joint Charity Commissioner for a declaration that the property in question is a trust property. It Is not in dispute that the said proceedings have been disposed of by the Joint Charity Commissioner holding that the suit property is not the property of the said trust. Against the said decision the matter was taken in revision before the Charity Commissioner, who in turn confirmed the view taken by the Joint Charity Commissioner that the property is not the trust property. Against this decision the plaintiff No. 1 filed Misc. Application No. 106/95 before the District Judge. Pune. The District Judge has since confirmed the finding recorded by the Charity Commissioner that the suit property is not a trust property. In other words, the question whether the property belongs to the trust or not has become final to the extent that It has been conclusively decided by the District Judge, Pune vide order dated 6.5.2000.
6. Before dealing with the merits of the submissions, I think it is apposite to advert to the relevant provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act- Section 80 of the Act reads thus :-
'80. Bar of Jurisdiction.- Save as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under this Act, (and in respect of) which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive.'
Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act postulates an express bar of jurisdiction against the Civil Court to decide or deal with any question which is by or under the said Act to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under the Act and subject of which Ihe decision or order of officer or authority has been made final and conclusive. Section 19(ii) of the Act reads thus :
'19. Inquiry for registration. -On the receipt of an application under Section 18, or upon an application made by any person having interest in a public trust or on his own motion, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner shall make an inquiry in the prescribed manner for the purpose of ascertaining -
(i) xx
(ii) whether any property is the properly of such trust,.....'
Section 19(ii) envisages that the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner shall make enquiry in the manner prescribed under the Act for the purpose of ascertaining whether any property is the property of a trust.
7. Undisputedly, in the present case such enquiry has been made by the Competent Authorities and the decision of the said enquiry has culminated in the decision of the District Judge as aforesaid. It is stated that the decision of the District Court dated 6.5.2000 has attained finality. Notwithstanding this position, the Court below, while holding that Ihe Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant relief in terms of prayer clause [a) of the suit, has mainly held that the question regarding the title of the suit property is a complicated question. In para 12 of the judgment under challenge, the Trial Court has taken note of the fact that the question of title in respect of the suit property has already been decided by the competent Court; and yet proceeded to hold that the issue whether the suit property is trust property or not, which issue is the subject matter of the suit can be entertained by the Civil Court, notwithstanding the bar under Section 80 of the Act.
8. This approach of the Trial Court, in rny view, cannot be countenanced. In my view, even if the question regarding the title of the suit property was a complicated one, even then it was for the Competent Authority (under the Bombay Public Trusts Act), in the first instance, to pronounce in that behalf and only thereafter the Civil Court would proceed to exercise its jurisdiction to examine the said aspect. The Civil Court by itself cannot be permitted to usurp the exclusive Jurisdiction of the Competent Authority, in view of the express bar under Section 80 of the Act, on the assumption that the question of title of the suit property is a complicated one. This approach is wholly unstable. Since the main premise on which the Court below has assumed that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit, in my view, being totally unsustainable, the impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law.
9. In the circumstances, the order under challenge is quashed and set aside and the issue framed by the Trial Court as articulated in para 4 above is answered against the plaintiffs.
For the aforesaid reasons, rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.