JUDGMENT 1. This Judgment shall govern disposal of both the aforesaid appeals as common questions of law are involved in both these appeals. 2. F.A. No. 51/89 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 15.2.89 passed by District Judge, Ujjain, in Civil Suit No. 5-A/83, while F.A. No. 136/91 arises out of the judgment and decree dated 25.7.91 passed in Civil Suit No. 2-A/80 by the 1st Additional District, Shajapur. Both the suits were filed for recovery of certain immovable properties by the appellant/United Church of Northern India Trust Association, a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Act 1950') and having its registered office at Bombay. The suits have been dismissed on certain preliminary grounds. In Civil Suit No. 5-A/83, the Court below has upheld defendant's objection that the suit was not maintainable for want of consent of the Charity Commissioner, Bombay as envisaged under Section 50 of the Act, 1950. In Civil Suit No. 2-A/1980, the Court below besides giving similar finding as aforesaid, has further held that jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in the matter in view of the provisions of Sections 79 and 80 of the Act, 1950. 3. So, the questions requiring determination in these appeals are One whether consent of the Charity Commissioner Bombay as envisaged u/S. 50 of the Act, 1950 as required for instituting the suits and Two: whether jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in the matter in view of the provisions of Ss. 79 and 80 of the Act, 1950. 4. I have heard Shri A.H. Khan and Shri M.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Before taking up the aforesaid questions, appellants' objection as to the applicability of the Bombay Act, 1950 to the present suits requires to be disposed of. It is, contended that the Act, 1950 is applicable to the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat only and since the properties in question are situated in Madhya Pradesh, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the present suits. The contention, I am afraid, cannot be sustained. It is, contended that the Act, 1950 is applicable to the States of Maharashtra and Gujarat only and since the properties in question are situated in Madhya Pradesh, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the present suits. The contention, I am afraid, cannot be sustained. It is true that the properties in dispute in these suits are situated in Madhya Pradesh, nevertheless, as per plaintiffs' own showing the properties belonged to the plaintiff/trust, having it's registered office at Bombay and registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, all rights and liabilities of the plaintiff/trust shall, therefore, be governed by the provisions of the Act, 1950. While the suit to enforce any right in the suit property situated in M.P., can certainly be instituted by or against the plaintiff/trust in MP, but the same has to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1950. As held in Rameshwar ( 1968 JLJ 891 ), the provisions of M.P. Public Trust shall not apply to such trusts having their origin outside the State. Obviously they shall be governed by the Acts of their respective States. 6. Now coming to the question of consent by the Charity Commissioner Bombay, it will be useful here to read relevant clauses of Sec. 50 of the Act of 1950 which deals with the suit by or against or relating to public trust or trustees or others. Relevant clauses are thus, as follows: "50. In any case -- (i) ..... (ii) where a direction or decree is required to recover the possession of or to follow a property belonging or alleged to be belonging to a public trust or the proceeds thereof or for an account of such property or proceeds from a trustee, ex-trustee, alience, trespasser or any other person including a person holding adversely to the public trust but not a tenant or licensee; (iii) ..... (iv) for any declaration or injunction in favour of or against a public trust or trustee or beneficiary thereof, the Charity Commissioner after making such enquiry as he thinks necessary, or two or more persons having an interest in case the suit is under sub-clauses (i) to (iii), or one or more such persons in case the suit is under sub-clause. (iv) having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner as provided in Section 51 may institute a suit whether contentious or not in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree for any of the following reliefs; .....". 7. Section 51 lays down the procedure for grant of consent by the Charity Commissioner for institution of suit. A bare reading of both the Ss. 50 and 51 would show that any suit instituted by or against or relating to a public trust or trustees has to conform the requirements of both these Sections. Clause (iv) of Sec. 50 makes it abundantly clear that a suit for recovery of possession of property belonging to a public trust registered under the Act, 1950 can either be instituted by the Charity Commissioner himself or by two or more persons having an interest after obtaining consent of the Charity Commissioner. Sec 50 does not contemplate any other person or institution, who can bring suit for recovery of possession of trust property. It therefore, necessarily follows that a suit instituted by a person other than the Charity Commissioner himself, can only be instituted with the latter's consent. 8. It was, however, contended strenuously by the learned counsel for the appellants that the present suits are instituted by the trust itself and as such the bar regarding consent contained under Sec. 50 is not attracted. It was, further, contended that the appellant/trust is also incorporated as a Company under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 and therefore, a suit by the Company for recovery of its properties is maintainable. Reliance has been placed on a decision of Gujarat High Court in Nadiad Nagarpalik v. Vithalbhai Zeverbhai and others AIR 1960 Guj. 161. I am, however, not persuaded by the arguments and the decision in Nadiad (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 9. As regards the appellant/plaintiff being a Company incorporated under the India Companies Act, the certificate of incorporation pertains to 9.3.1939 whereas the plaintiff/trust cannot therefore, escape the restrictions imposed under the Act of 1950. 10. 161. I am, however, not persuaded by the arguments and the decision in Nadiad (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 9. As regards the appellant/plaintiff being a Company incorporated under the India Companies Act, the certificate of incorporation pertains to 9.3.1939 whereas the plaintiff/trust cannot therefore, escape the restrictions imposed under the Act of 1950. 10. The expression "person having interest" has been defined under Section 2(x) of the Act, of 1950, according to which in the case of a public trust not being a Temple or a Math or a Wakf, in Maharashtra, it would mean any trustee or beneficiary. For Gujarat, it included only a beneficiary not necessarily. For Gujarat, it included only a beneficiary not necessarily a trustee. It is in the context of the definition of the expression "person having interest" as is applicable for Gujarat State, that the High Court of Gujarat in Nadiad (supra) has held that suit for possession of land belonging to Public Trust by trustees against trespasser can be brought and maintained without the permission of the Charity Commissioner. Even otherwise, the view taken by Gujarat High Court, in my humble opinion, does not appear to be correct. As already pointed out, Section 50 of clause (iv) envisages a suit either by the Charity Commissioner or by persons having an interest. If the suit is not instituted by the Charity Commissioner himself, then his consent in writing as provided under Section 51 would be necessary. A suit by the Trust or trustees would, therefore, fall within the category of a suit by the persons having an interest requiring consent of the Charity Commissioner. 11. I, therefore, concur with the finding recorded by the Courts below in both the suits that the consent of the Charity Commissioner under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act of 1950 was necessary for filing, of the suits and since no such consent is obtained, the suits were not maintainable. 12. Coming to the second question as to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Clause (iv) of Section 50 itself provides that any such suit can be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject matter of the trust, is situated. 12. Coming to the second question as to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, Clause (iv) of Section 50 itself provides that any such suit can be instituted in the Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject matter of the trust, is situated. In the instant case the property in dispute in each suit is situated in Madhya Pradesh within the local limits of the Court in which the suit has been filed. The Court therefore, had jurisdiction to try the suit, but subject to the compliance of Sections 50 and 51 of the Act. The dispute in the present suits does not fall within the purview of Sections 79 and 80 of the Act and as such jurisdiction of Civil Court was not barred. However, in view of my finding on the question regarding permission of the Charity Commissioner, these appeals must fail. 13. In the result, these appeals are dismissed, but without any order as to costs. 14. This judgment be retained in FA. No. 51/89 and a copy be filed in F.A. 136/91.