SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Rajendra Babu and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 2955/1987. D/d. 18.9.2001.

Shankar Lal Gulab Chand Pachorekar - Appellant

Versus

Bhimrao Ramchandra Devbhankar & Ors. - Respondents

Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, Section 22-A - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11 - Proceedings under - Fresh proceedings - Res judicata - Proceedings dropped for want of jurisdiction - Assistant Charity Commissioner dropped proceedings as he had no jurisdiction to enquire into a matter of title under Section 22-A of the Act - Fresh proceedings under Section 22-A would be barred by earlier proceedings.

[Para 3]

JUDGMENT

1. The respondents on an earlier occasion filed an application under Section 22-A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The Assistant Charity Commissioner who looked into the application stated as follows :

"The present proceeding has been instituted by the applicants under Section 22A of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1959. The proceeding out of which Appeal No. 176/72 arose were also initiated under Section 22-A of the B.P.T. Act, 1950. Similar the opponents are claiming full ownership over the properties in dispute in this proceeding. Their claim over the properties is in denial of the trust interest. They have set up a hostile title over the properties in dispute and adversely to the interest of the public trust. The opponents are claiming no interest in the trust. Hence in view of these facts, it is quite clear that the decision of the High Court in First Appeal No. 176/72 will be fully applicable to the present case and will have to be followed in this case also in toto."

2. The decision referred to in appeal No. 176/72 by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the course of his order is a full Bench decision of the High Court. In the wake of that decision he dropped further proceedings for want of jurisdiction.On the second occasion, when the proceedings were sought to be initiated the appellant objected to the consideration of the matter by the Assistant Charity Commissioner on the ground that the earlier proceedings would bar the present proceedings on the principle of res-judicata. That objection having been overruled the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court against that order.

3. The High Court considered that the question is one relating to inherent jurisdiction of the authority under the Act to entertain and decide the application under Section 22-A and the earlier order dismissing the application for want of jurisdiction would not bar the present proceedings. It is difficult to understand the reasoning set out by the High Court. When on an earlier occasion hostile title was set up and on that basis the Assistant Charity Commissioner having dropped the proceedings as he had no jurisdiction to inquire into such a matter under Section 22-A of the Act, we fail to understand as to how that decision would not bar the fresh proceedings. In that view of the matter we allow this appeal and set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the proceeding before the Assistant Charity Commissioner.

.