Smt Alaknanda Raoji Rane & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Shri R.R.Mishra for the Appellants. Ms G.P.Mulekar, A.G.P for the Respondent No.1. Shri A.Nalavade for the Respondent No.2. Shri U.Mirajkar for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. CORAM : 18th MARCH, 2008. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2008. DATEDATE : 18th MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:

Heard advocate appearing for the appellants. Though this appeal is numbered as First Appeal, in view of settled position of law, the same will be governed by the constraints of a Second Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

A change report was filed at the instance of the appellants on 20th June, 1998 for recording change which had allegedly taken placed on 14th July, 1991. The said change report was rejected by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner. An appeal was preferred by the appellants before the learned Joint Charity Commissioner. The said appeal has been dismissed. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has dismissed the application under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present appeal has been preferred. 2 : ::: 2 : 2 :

The submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is that though there may not be a formal application filed by the trustees for condonation of delay in filing the change report, it is obvious from letter dated 20th July, 1991 as well as 20th August, 1991 that the change report infact ought to have been filed by the second respondent herein. Placing reliance on a change report dated 28th May, 2001 allegedly filed by the second respondent he submitted that even the second respondent accepted that one Raoji Murarrao Rane was appointed as trustee of the Trust. He, therefore, submitted that a very hyper-technical view has been taken by the authorities and courts below.

I have considered the submissions. The alleged change was effected on 14th July, 1991 and the change report in question was filed on 20th June, 1998. The only explanation for delay is based on letter dated 20th August, 1991 addressed to the second respondent by which the second respondent was informed to submit the change report on the basis of the alleged change dated 14th July, 1991. It is contended that the second respondent committed default and did not file change report. There is nothing on record to show what transpired after 20th August, 1991 till 1998 when the change report was filed. 3 : ::: 3 : 3 :

Reliance was placed on change report allegedly filed by the second respondent on 28th May, 2001. However, it is not clear whether the said change report is on record of the Deputy Charity Commissioner. In the present proceedings, perusal of the cross-examination of the second respondent shows that the second respondent was not confronted by showing the said change report. Therefore, the said change report dated 28th May, 2001 cannot be taken into consideration.

There is a gross unexplained delay in filing the change report and therefore no interference can be made. Apart from this it is an admitted position that only dispute between parties was whether one Raoji Murarrao Rane was appointed as a trustee on 14th July, 1991. It is an admitted position that said Raoji expired on 30th March, 2001.

There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. It is obvious that if there are other change reports pending, the same will be decided by the concerned authorities on its own merits. Civil Application No.3875 of 2007 does not survive and the same is rejected. The learned advocate for the Appellants prays for stay of operation of this order. Prayer is rejected. 4 : ::: 4 : 4 : Judge. Judge. Judge.