STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus SHRI CHANDER KANT

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 29-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... ~· --
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
v. 
SHRI CHANDER KANT 
October 29, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, c. J., M. H. BEG AND v. R. KRISHNA IYER JJ.] 
993 
Code of Civil Procedure, s. 80--Whether applicable to suits 
filed 
u11der-
sectio11 9(1) of t/1e (M.P.) Public Trusts A.ct, 1951. 
A 
B 
Th• respondent filed this suit against the o~er of the Registrar of 
Publ!c 
Trust, Amraoti, declaring tho Ganjanan Mahara1 Sansthan of Mangr11l-Dastag1r 
to' be a public trust. The Additional District Judge's order dismissing the suit, 
was uph!:,ld in appeal by the Single Judge of tho High Court on account of the 
responde'llt's failure to serve a notice under-section 80 C.P.C. Allowing a Letters 
Patent Appeal, a Full Bench of the High Court held that s. 80 C.P.C. was not 
C 
applicable to suits filed 
under-section 8 of the 
(M.P.) 
Public Trusts 
Act, 
1951. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Section 8( of the Act indicates that tho suit contemplated there 
is 
against the public officer in his official capacity within the meaning of Section 
80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The words "Act purporting to be done in 
official capacity" apply to non-feasance as well as to misfeasance. No distinc-
D 
tion can be made. between acts done illegally and in bad faith and acts done 
bonafide in official capacity. [994 C, 995 DJ 
Sawai Singhai Ninna/ Chand v. Union of India [1966] 1 S.C.R. 986 referred 
to. 
Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secretary of State for India in Council and others 
(54 LA. 338), Prasaddas v. Be11nerjee I.LR. (1930] (57) Cal. 1127, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1798 of 1968. 
(From the Judgment and Decree dated 16.6.1966 of the Bombay 
High Court in Appeal No. 13/62) 
V. S. Desai & M. N. Shrof} for the appellants. 
A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C. J.-This appeal by certificate is from the judgment dated 
16 .lune 1966 of the High Court at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) . 
• 
The respondent filed this suit against the State claiming that the 
order dated 1 March, 1955 in Revenue 
case declaring 
Gajanan 
Maharaj Sansthan of Mangrul-Dastagir to be a public trust be set 
aside. 
The plaint was filed under section 8 (1) of the Public Trust 
Act (M.P. Public Trusts Act 1951) against the State of Madhya 
Pradesh and the Registrar of Public Trust, Amraoti. 
It is admitted by the parties that no notice under section 80 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure was given. 
The defendants took the 
plea that the suit was liable to be dismissed by reason of no notice 
under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been given. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
. 994' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 1 S.C.R. 
The Additional District Judge by his order'dated 26 March, 
1957 held a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 
was necessary and the suit was not maintainable and ordered 
the 
dismissal of the suit. 
· 
The respondent filed an appeal. 
The 
learned 
Single 
Judge 
agreed with the view of the Additional District Judge. 
A Letters Patent Appeal was filed. 
The matter was placed be-
fore a Full Bench. 
The Full Bench held 
that the provisions 
of 
section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had no application to a 
suit filed under section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Tru~s Act, 
1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .. 
This Court in Sawai Singhai Nirmal Chand v. Union of JndiaC)-
held that notice under section 80 is necessary for setting aside orders 
of attachment and sale of property. 
The provisions contained in section 8 of the Act indicate that 
the suit contemplated there is against the Public Officer in his ofilcial 
capacity within the meaning of section 80 of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure. 
The provisions of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure are 
express, explicit and mandatory. 
See Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Sec-
retary of State for India in Council and otherse). 
The Registrar in the present case held it to be a public trust. 
The declaration sought for in this suit is that this is not a public 
trust. 
The High Court was wrong in holding that the suit under 
section 8 of the Act cannot be regarded as a suit against the Govern-
ment. 
The Full Bench held that neither the Government nor the Regis-
trar was competent to give any relief to any person who felt aggriev-
ed by the order of the Registrar. 
The following provisions of the Act are important to be noticed. 
The Collector shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in res

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.