Gollaleshwar Dev And Ors vs Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math & Ors on 15 October, 1985

1. Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the judgment and decree of the Karnataka High Court (Full Bench) and the District Judge, Bijapur. The plaintiffs' suit for a declaration of title to and possession of the suit property, along with mesne profits, was decreed.

2. Core Issue
The core issue was whether two or more trustees of a registered public trust can, with the written permission of the Charity Commissioner, bring a suit for a declaration that certain property belongs to the public trust and for possession of the same from a person holding it adversely to the trust, under Section 50(ii) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. This depended on whether the phrase "persons having interest in the trust" (as defined in Section 2(10) and used in Section 50 of the Act) includes the trustees themselves.

3. Key Facts
* Shree Gollaleshwar Dev is an ancient temple registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, situated in Bijapur (now Karnataka).
* The suit property consisted of arches alongside the temple walls, meant for devotees, and was registered as belonging to the temple.
* It was customary for trustees to permit persons rendering services to the temple to reside in the premises on a leave and license basis.
* The respondents (Shantayya and Smt. Shankarawa), who were allowed to reside in the suit premises for their services, started claiming adverse possession in 1957.
* The father of Appellant No. 2 (then trustee) terminated their services and sought eviction.
* Prior suits (Civil Suits Nos. 244 and 255 of 1957) filed by the idol and trustee were dismissed as non-maintainable due to lack of Charity Commissioner's consent and jurisdictional issues under Section 50(ii) of the Act.
* The present suit (Civil Suit No. 2 of 1962) was instituted before the District Judge, Bijapur, by the idol (Plaintiff No. 1), Appellant No. 2 (present trustee, Plaintiff No. 2), and Appellant No. 3 (beneficiary, Plaintiff No. 3), after obtaining the written consent of the Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the Act.
* The District Judge dismissed the suit, following the High Court's decision in Ganapathi Ram Naik (which reversed an earlier view), holding that a suit for recovery of idol's property by a trustee was not contemplated by Section 50(ii) as it was for "private rights" and not of a "representative character," and therefore not maintainable in the District Court under the Act.
* A Full Bench of the High Court upheld the District Judge's decision.

4. Arguments (Taxpayer vs Revenue)
* Appellants' (Plaintiffs') Implicit Arguments (as accepted by SC):
* The definition of "person having interest" in Section 2(10) of the Act is inclusive and wide enough to cover trustees and beneficiaries.
* A suit for recovery of trust property from adverse possession, brought by trustees and beneficiaries with the Charity Commissioner's consent, falls squarely within the scope of Section 50(ii)(a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
* Section 50 of the BPT Act is distinct from and broader than Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, encompassing suits for the preservation of trust property, not just those of a representative character.
* Respondents' (Defendants') Arguments (as upheld by High Court):
* The suit property belonged to them by virtue of a registered gift deed dated February 19, 1917, executed by Mariyappa (grandfather of Appellant No. 3's uncle).
* The suits were not maintainable for want of Charity Commissioner's consent (for the 1957 suits).
* The Civil Judge (Senior Division) or District Judge lacked jurisdiction because a suit by a trustee/idol to recover trust property is for vindication of "private rights" and not a "representative character" suit under Section 50 of the Act (which the High Court equated with Section 92 CPC). Therefore, such a suit should be brought under ordinary law in civil courts.
* "Persons having interest in the trust" in Section 50 does not include trustees when they sue to vindicate their private rights or the idol's personal rights.

5. Court’s Reasoning
* Interpretation of "Person Having Interest" (Section 2(10)): The Supreme Court held that the definition of "person having interest" in Section 2(10) is "inclusive" (the word "includes" replaced "means" in the 1953 amendment). This amendment was intended to broaden the scope to include trustees, beneficiaries, and other interested persons, resolving previous doubts. Therefore, Appellant No. 2 (trustee) and Appellant No. 3 (beneficiary, member of the founder's family) are clearly "persons having interest" under the Act.
* Scope of Section 50 vs. Section 92 CPC: The Court rejected the Full Bench's premise that Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trust Act is in pari materia with Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While Section 50 is structured similarly, it contains a specific provision (clause (ii) relief (a)) that is not found in Section 92 CPC. Section 50 explicitly authorizes suits for a declaration that property belongs to a public trust and for its recovery from a person holding it adversely. This makes Section 50 wider than Section 92 CPC.
* Nature of Suit under Section 50: The Court clarified that Section 50 of the Act contemplates not only suits of a representative character but also suits by two or more trustees for the preservation of trust property. The Full Bench's reasoning, that a suit by an idol to enforce its private rights does not attract Section 92 CPC (and by extension, Section 50 BPT Act), was deemed fallacious as it misconstrued the specific wording and intent of Section 50 BPT Act.
* Purpose of the Act: The provisions of Sections 50-52 of the BPT Act were enacted to create and regulate a right to institute suits by the Charity Commissioner or interested persons, serving as supplementary statutory provisions. This does not defeat the ordinary right of a trustee to sue in the idol's name but provides an additional avenue, especially when combined with the Charity Commissioner's consent under Section 51.
* Precedent Distinction: The Court distinguished Bishwanath & Anr. v. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji & Ors. (a case on Section 92 CPC), noting that while it held Section 92 CPC did not bar suits for private rights (allowing them in ordinary courts), the Bombay Public Trust Act, through Section 50, provides a specific statutory mechanism for such suits (recovery of trust property) within its framework, subject to the Charity Commissioner's consent.

6. Statutory References
* Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950: Sections 2(10), 2(18), 50, 50(ii), 50(ii)(a), 51, 51(1), 52(1).
* Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 92, 93.
* States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
* Bombay Public Trusts (Amendment) Act, 1953.

7. Precedents Cited
* Overruled:
* Ganapathi Ram Naik & Anr. v. Kumta Shri Venkataraman Dev, 1964 1 Mysore L.J. 172 (and I.L.R. (1963) Mys. 1059)
* Shree GOLLALESHWAR Dev & Ors. v. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math Ors., A.I.R. 1972 Kart (F.B.)
* Distinguished:
* Bishwanath & Anr. v. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji & Ors. [1967] 2 S.C.R. 618
* Referred to (by lower courts/Full Bench, but not followed by SC):
* Marikamba Temple and Hanumant Temple, Sirsi, by its Manager, S.S. Dhakappa v. Subraya Venkataramanappa Barkur, I.L.R. 1958 Mysore 736
* Budree Mukia v. Chooni Lal Johurry, I.L.R. (1906) 33 Cal. 789
* Lakshmandas Raghunath Das v. Jugal Kishore, I.L.R. (1896) 22 Bom. 216