VIJAY PULLARWAR & ORS. versus SHRI HANUMAN DEOSTHAN,A PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES

VIJAY PULLARWAR & ORS. versus SHRI HANUMAN DEOSTHAN,A PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH ITS TRUSTEES

Plaintiffs failed to establish, by documentary evidence or official records, that the suit house No.878 in Circle No.3 is property of the plaintiff trust; the registered trust property is House No.55, a completely different property. Without compliance with mandatory procedure under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, civil suit for possession is not maintainable, and civil court's jurisdiction is barred regarding title of trust property; hence, the suit must be dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Vijay Pullarwar & Ors.; Respondent: Shri Hanuman Deosthan, a Public Trust through its Trustees
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Title to Trust Property, Jurisdiction of Charity Commissioner, Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction, Procedure Under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act
Trusts and Charities Property Law Title to Trust Property Jurisdiction of Charity Commissioner Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction Procedure Under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijay Pullarwar & Ors.

Appellant

Shri Hanuman Deosthan, a Public Trust through its Trustees

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit property is the property of the plaintiff trust.
  2. 2 Whether suit for possession based on title is maintainable without compliance with Sections 50 and 51 of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.
  3. 3 Whether Civil Courts have jurisdiction to decide title to trust property.

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to establish, by documentary evidence or official records, that the suit house No.878 in Circle No.3 is property of the plaintiff trust; the registered trust property is House No.55, a completely different property. Without compliance with mandatory procedure under Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, civil suit for possession is not maintainable, and civil court's jurisdiction is barred regarding title of trust property; hence, the suit must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment and decree set aside.
  • Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court restored; suit dismissed.