# ~· -- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR v. SHRI CHANDER KANT

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 993
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-10-29
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1798 of 1968
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, v. R. KRISHNA IYER
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-maharashtra-and-anr-v-shri-chander-kant-6996
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

993
Code of Civil Procedure, s. 80--Whether applicable to suits
filed
u11dersectio11 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 distincD
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.

## Text

... ~· --
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
u11dersectio11 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 distincD
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 before 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 Procedure.
The provisions of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure are
express, explicit and mandatory.
See Bhagchand Dagadusa v. Secretary 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 Government.
The Full Bench held that neither the Government nor the Registrar was competent to give any relief to any person who felt aggrieved 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 respect of
every public trust the principal office or the principal place of business of which is situate in his district.
Within three months
from
the date on which section 4 comes into force in any area or from the
date on which a public trust is created, the working trustee of every
public trust shall apply to the Registrar having jurisdiction for the
registration of the public trust.
On receipt of an application
the
Registrar shall make an inquiry as contemplated in section 5 of the
Act.
The Registrar then shall record his finding with reasons. The
Registrar shall cau·se entries to be made in the register.
Any person
aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar may within six
months
from the date of the publication of the notice institute a suit in
a
civil court to have such finding set aside or modified.
In
every
such suit, the civil court shall give notice to the State Government
through the Registrar, and the State Government, if it so desires,
shall be made a party to the suit.
All monies belonging to a public
--------·
(l) [1966] 1 S.C.ll. 986.
(2) 54.I.A. 338.
)
\
MAHARASHTRA V. SH. CHANDER KANT (Ray, C. J.)
995
trust shall be kept in a Scheduled Bank.
No sale, mortgage,
~x
change or gift of any i=oveable property and no lease for a per~od
exceeding seven years in the case of agricultural land or for a penod
exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or a building belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous
sanction of the Registrar.
The Budget of every public trust where
the gross annual income of which exceeds one thousand rupees shall
be submitted to the Registrar.
The Registrar shall have powers to
enter on and inspect or cause to be entered on and inspected
any
property belonging to a public trust, or to call for any return, statemellt, account or report as contemplated in section 22 of the Act. If
the Registrar finds any defects in the administration of the public
trust the Registrar may require the working trust as to submit
an
explaaation.
The Registrar has power as contemplated in section
26 of the Act ,to direct the trustee to apply to court for directions in
certain cases. If the trustee fails to do so the Registrar shall himself make an application.
The State Government may make rules
for the purposes mentioned in the Act.
These provisions indicate that the Registrar is a Public Officer.
The words "act purporting to be done in official capacity" have been
construed to apply to non-feasance as well as to misfeasance.
The
word "act" extends to illegal omissions.
See Prasaddas v.
Bennerjee('). No distinction can be made between acts done illegally and in
bad faith and acts done bona fide in official capacity. See Bhagchand
Dagadusa's case (supra). Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure
therefore is attracted when any suit is filed against a Public Officer in
respect of any act purporting to be done by such Public Officer in
his official capacity.
The language of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that
a notice is to be given against not only the Government but also against
the Public Officer in respect of any act purpoting to be done in
his
official capacity.
The Registrar is a Public Officer.
The order is an
act purporting to be done in his official capacity.
A
B
c
D
E
I_n the pres~nt case, the suit is to set aside the order made by a
F
Public Officer m respect of an act done in the discharge of his official
duties.
Therefore, notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Pro-
::edure was required.
,
For the foregoing rea~ons the judgment of the High Court is set
aside.
Parties ~ill pay and bear their own costs.
M.R.
Appeal allowed.
(1) I-LR. (1930) 57 CaL 1127.