Janardan Ramchandra Shukla v. Radhabai Dattambhat Shukla
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 26 Jun 2009
- Bench
- NISHITA MHATRE
Provisions considered
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 s. 22
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The Charity Commissioner, by his order has held that the proceeding under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is quasi judicial in nature. There is no strict judicial enquiry and, therefore, it was necessary for the applicant that is the petitioners…
Judgment
Janardan Ramchandra Shukla (since deceased through heirs) Shri Waman @ Prabhakar Janardan Shukla & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Radhabai Dattambhat Shukla (since deceased through heirs) Smt. Vidya Vasudeo Joshi & ors. ... Respondents Mr.V.R.Gaikwad i/by Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for the petitioners. Mr.S.R.Ganbavale for Respondent Nos.1 to 7. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 26TH JUNE, 2009 P.C.:
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2008 passed by the Charity Commissioner. By this order, the Charity Commissioner has returned the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of witness summons to the attesting witnesses to the will of late Radhabai. 2
The petitioners claim that under the will of late Radhabai, they are entitled to property which is situated in Kolhapur. The respondents are the descendants of Radhabai and claim that the petitioners have no right over that property. An enquiry regarding the change report is pending before the Charity Commissioner. In those proceedings they desire to prove the will of Radhabai and hence sought witness summons to examine the attesting witness.
The Charity Commissioner, by his order has held that the proceeding under Section 22 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is quasi judicial in nature. There is no strict judicial enquiry and, therefore, it was necessary for the applicant that is the petitioners herein to prove the alleged will in a Civil Court if they so desire. In view of this finding, the application for witness summons was rejected.
In my opinion, there is no error committed by the Charity Commissioner by passing such a order. A will cannot be proved before any other authority but the Civil Court and, therefore, the Charity Commissioner’s orders need not be interfered under 3 Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Writ petition rejected.
It is expected that the enquiry in respect of the change report, which has been pending from 1972, shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. ..... 4
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 — s. 22; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 26 Jun 2009. The bench was NISHITA MHATRE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.