Judgment ( 1 ) PRESENT First Appeal is directed by appelt lants (original applicants), feeling aggrieved by the order, passed by III additional District Judge, Ahmednagar in trust Application No. 6 of 1993 on 17. 1. 1998. ( 2 ) THE appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the trustees of Shah-Dargah and Masjid Trust and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are managing affairs of dargah Masjid under hereditary rights. The said Trust was registered on 15. 7. 1965 by assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune in inquiry Application No. 124 of 1965, moved by one Fakir Mohammad, father of applicant no. 1, Khatijabi w/o Makbul Hussain. The dargah and Masjid owns and possesses huge landed property, which was received by them under Sanad and Grants. The appellants and their forefathers are looking after the management and affairs of the Trust since then. ( 3 ) IT is their case that, sometime in the year 1952-53, respondent, Mohammad hussain Shaikh Yusuf (deceased) by legal representatives, though he had no locus, and though he wasnt anyway concerned with the trust property bearing Survey Nos. 401 and 402, admeasuring 23 acres, 8 gunthas, situated at burahannagar, moved an application for registration of the said Trust under Sections 18 and 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter called as "act of 1950") in the name and style as "shah Madar Dargah and masjid Trust". It was alleged that, this deceased respondent. Sheikh Mohammad wrongly and illegally moved such application and Assistant charity Commissioner, Pune, without having jurisdiction and without following the due procedure of law, as laid down under the Act of 1950, allowed the application and ordered to register the Trust on 16. 10. 1953. It was alleged that, respondent (deceased), Shaikh mohammad never managed the Trust property, or never looked after the management of the trust. He or his predecessors, were neither in possession of the agricultural lands, nor it was granted to him for the maintenance of Dargah and Masjid. It was further alleged that, thereafter, deceased respondent, Shaikh mohammad illegally and without any authority, sold the agricultural lands, bearing survey Nos. 401 and 402. It was the grievance made by the appellants that the Assistant charity Commissioner registered Trust in the names of respondents, bearing PTR No. B-102- (ANR), on 16. 10. 1953 and on second time, i. e. on 15. 7. 401 and 402. It was the grievance made by the appellants that the Assistant charity Commissioner registered Trust in the names of respondents, bearing PTR No. B-102- (ANR), on 16. 10. 1953 and on second time, i. e. on 15. 7. 1965, after twelve years, registered the trust in the name of appellants, bearing No. B-220 (ANR), in the same name and style "shah- madar Masjid and Dargah Trust". In the last, according to the appellant, the-Trust was wrongly registered in the name of respondent shaikh Mohammad (No. B-102-ANR) (Ahmednagar) and, therefore, filed revision Application No. 53 of 1991 under section 70-A of the Act of 1950, for deregistration of the said Trust PTR No. B-102-ANR (Ahmednagar ). ( 4 ) THE Joint Charity Commissioner, bombay on 28. 6. 1993, dismissed the said revision Application, holding that, such revision Application under Section 70-A of the Act of 1950 was not maintainable. Secondly, there was no reason to deregister the trust. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred Trust Application No. 6 of 1993 before District Judge, Ahmednangar. The iii Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar on 17. 1. 1993 dismissed the said Trust application, confirming the order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Bombay. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, feeling aggrieved by the said order, passed by III Additional District judge, Ahmednagar in Trust Application No. 6 of 1993, the appellants have preferred present first Appeal No. 664 of 1998, mainly on the grounds that, the learned Additional District judge did not properly consider the facts and circumstances of the case and also the legal position and, therefore, arrived at wrong conclusion. Secondly, the learned Judge should have held that, the Trust PTR No. B-120-ANR was wrongly registered by the Assistant charity Commissioner, Pune on the application, moved by deceased, Shaikh mohammad illegally and wrongly. In the last, according to appellants, the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, is not only contrary to the principles of law, but against the facts brought on record. ( 6 ) IT was argued by Shri. Pawar, learned counsel for the appellants that, all the courts below did not properly understand the problem, or did not properly appreciate the evidence on record, or did not properly consider the legal position and were wrong in rejecting their prayer. ( 6 ) IT was argued by Shri. Pawar, learned counsel for the appellants that, all the courts below did not properly understand the problem, or did not properly appreciate the evidence on record, or did not properly consider the legal position and were wrong in rejecting their prayer. In reply, it was argued by Shri. Gatne, learned counsel for the other side, the Trust of the respondents cannot be deregistered for more than one reason. Therefore, we have to view the case of the parties, in the light of grounds taken in appeal memo. (i) Attempt was made to show that and it was also argued that Assistant Charity commissioner, Pune, without having jurisdiction and without following the due procedure laid down under the Act of 1950, allowed the application and issued order on 16. 10. 1953, to register the Trust, "shah-Madar dargah and Masjid Trust" in their names. Admittedly, the appellants at that time, did not take any objection to the registration of the trust. The appellants could not show, as to how said order was illegal, improper and without jurisdiction. When the Assistant Charity commissioner, Pune passed the order, it presupposes that, he properly followed the procedure, laid down under the Act of 1950; he was having jurisdiction to pass such order and the order was proper. Therefore, the said order dated 16. 10. 1953, passed by the assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune, calls for no adverse remark. (ii) The Review Application No. 53 of 1991, under Section 70-A of the Act of 1950, filed before the Joint Charity Commissioner, bombay, was dismissed. The Trust Application no. 6 of 1993, filed before the District Judge, ahmednagar, challenging the said order, was also dismissed. Thus, all these forums recorded concurrent findings of fact. After pointing out all these things, it was argued by Shri. Gatne, when concurrent findings of fact and concurrent on the legal position was given by the competent courts below, similar application in form of present appeal, on same grounds cannot lie before this Court. Thus, all these forums recorded concurrent findings of fact. After pointing out all these things, it was argued by Shri. Gatne, when concurrent findings of fact and concurrent on the legal position was given by the competent courts below, similar application in form of present appeal, on same grounds cannot lie before this Court. After pointing out all these things, it was argued that, appeal filed under section 72 (4) of the Act of 1950, though it is styled as First Appeal, it will have to be treated as Second Appeal, being similar in nature to the Second Appeals, as provided under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure and as no substantial question of law arises, such first appeal can not lie and in support of his contention, relied on the decisions, given by this Court reported in -1)1992 Bombay Law Reporter 419 (Mogul Ahmed Miya Girav since deceased by L. Rs. Abbul Aziz Vs. Hidayatulla Baldi-2) 1998 Bombay Law Reporter 822 (Shivprasad Shankarlal Pardeshi (since deceased by LRs. Vs. Leelabai badrinarayan Kalwar (since deceased by LRs.) in the present case before us, it could not be pointed out, as to whether any substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Therefore the First Appeal, which is filed without there being any substantial question of law. is not maintainable. It is necessary to mention that, order was passed by the Assistant Charity commissioner, Pune, on 16. 10. 1953 and thereby ordered to register the Trust (PTR no. B-102-ANR ). The appellants, for the first time, felt aggrieved by the said order sometimes in the year 1991, after about 38 years and then filed Revision Application no. 53 of 1991 before the Charity commissioner, Bombay. It was argued by the learned counsel, Shri. Gatne for the other side that, the appellants got up from the sleep after 38 years and then filed such Revision application, challenging the order of registration of respondents Trust. It was further argued that the delay was abnormal. Moreover, the delay was not at all explained and even then, the Revision Application was filed. In reply, it was argued by Shri. Pawar. learned counsel for the appellants that, the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings pending before the Charity commissioner under the Act of 1950. It was further argued that the delay was abnormal. Moreover, the delay was not at all explained and even then, the Revision Application was filed. In reply, it was argued by Shri. Pawar. learned counsel for the appellants that, the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings pending before the Charity commissioner under the Act of 1950. In reply, it was argued by Shri. Gatne, it is not permitted to file such Revision Application any time and that too after longest period of 38 years and in support of his contention, relied on the decisions reported in-1) (1997)6 Supreme Court Cases 71 (Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin Vs. Fatambai Ibrahim)-2) 1991 Bombay Law Reporter 905 (Bashir Babumiya Inamdar Vs. Mulim Misgar Jamat) in view of the ratio laid down in the decisions, referred to above, both the courts below rightly held that the appellants made really abnormal delay in filing such Revision Application. In such circumstances, both the courts below rightly rejected the prayer, even on the ground of delay. (iii) Shri. Gatne, learned counsel for the respondents has taken us through the provisions of Sections 18,19,70 of the Act of 1950 and it was pointed out that, if one is aggrieved by the order, passed under Section 18 or 19 of the Act of 1950. the remedy is by way of appeal and the Revision under Section 70-A of the Act of 1950. In reply, it was argued by Shri. Pawar that, the Charity Commissioner, in view of Sections 70 and 70-A, has got power and jurisdiction, by way of Revision to call record and proceedings from the Assistant charity Commissioner etc. and to pass appropriate orders, in view of the provisions of Act of 1950 and in such circumstances revision Application is maintainable and learned counsel, in support of his contention, relied on the decision, reported in 1969 mh. L. J. 292 (Mir Mohamad Haidar mujawar Vs. Mir Jamal Haidar Mujawar.) in reply, it was argued by Shri. Gatne. under the provisions of Section 70 (1) (a) of the Act of 1950, appeal is provided against the order, passed by Assistant Charity Commissioner or deputy Charity Commissioner under Section 20 of the Act of 1950. In such circumstances, when appeal is provided under the Act of 1950, the appellants were wrong in filing the revision Application under Section 70-A of the Act 1950. In such circumstances, when appeal is provided under the Act of 1950, the appellants were wrong in filing the revision Application under Section 70-A of the Act 1950. The learned Additional District judge and the learned Charity Commissioner properly considered this aspect. (iv) The burden affirmatively lies on the appellants to show that, the Trust of the respondents was wrongly and illegally registered. The appellants, however, failed to substantiate their case. The Trust of the respondents, in fact, was registered about twelve years, before the registration of the trust of the appellants. The appellants did not take any objection, when the Trust of the respondents was registered, or when they did sell the landed property with the permission of the Chanty Commissioner etc. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that, the Trust of the respondents was wrongly registered. After going through the evidence on record, it is seen that, both courts below properly considered all the aspects of the case and were right in recording concurrent findings and rejecting the prayer of the appellants, made for de-registration of the Trust of the respondents. I, therefore, find no reason for interfering with the finding and the order, recorded by both the courts below. In the result, appeal must fail. "first Appeal No. 664 of 1998, dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal. Appeal Dismissed.