JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by the present appellants-original defendants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 56 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act arises from the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1982 passed by learned District Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj in Civil Suit No.1 of 1977 whereby the original defendant No.2 was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the Gusai Panch Trust. 2. The facts in short are that a suit was filed by the plaintiffs under Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 ('the Act' for short) stating that they were the descendants of 'Mathadharies of the Gusai Panch Trust at Mandvi. The Trust owned certain movable and immovable properties at Kachchh-Mandvi including 'Gusai Panchwada' which is the suit property admeasuring 15460 sq.ft., the sole trustee of which was the defendant No.1. When the defendant No.1 sought permission of the Charity Commissioner to transfer certain properties to the defendant No.2 by gift vide application dated 27-3-1974, the plaintiffs opposed the same and hence, the application was withdrawn. Second application, however, was dismissed by the Charity Commissioner as parties did not remain present. Since the defendant No.2 started demolishing the suit property for construction of a Girls High School without following due process of the Act, the plaintiffs approached the Charity Commissioner. Inspite of the directions from the Charity Commissioner against any construction, the defendants, in collusion with each other, executed false documents pertaining to the suit property and mismanaged the affairs of the Trust and hence, the defendant No.1 was to be disqualified from being the trustee of the Trust. Therefore, the aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs to remove the defendant No.1 from the position of trustee and also to declare the possession of the suit property held by the defendant No.2 as well as execution of lease deed between the defendant Nos.2 and 1 as illegal. 3. The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. It was contended that the transaction between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 was legal and authorized. It was further contended that the very purpose of renting the suit property to the defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1 was to impart education to girls. It was further contended that possession of the suit property by the defendant No.2 was legal. It was contended that the transaction between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 was legal and authorized. It was further contended that the very purpose of renting the suit property to the defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1 was to impart education to girls. It was further contended that possession of the suit property by the defendant No.2 was legal. They therefore prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs. 4. Learned City Civil Judge, at the end of trial, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, allowed the suit of the plaintiff as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the original defendants. 5. Heard learned counsel, Mr.J.R.Nanavati for the appellants, Mr.Suresh M.Shah for the respondent Nos.1 to 6, Mr.C.H.Vora for the respondent Nos.7 to 9, learned AGP, Ms.Manisha Narsinghani for the respondent No.10. Deputy Charity Commissioner, Mr.Upadhyay, is also personally present in Court. 6. Learned counsel, Mr.J.R.Nanavati, submitted that the School has been running since 1974 and is one of best Schools in the area imparting education to girls and hence, the appellants may be permitted to run the School. He further submitted that the appellants will make application under Section 36 of the Act for regularization before the Charity Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner may make any change in the purpose of the Scheme as the old Scheme is not taken away nor is it restricted by any document. He further submitted that education of girls is vital not only for the country but for the whole world and, therefore, the Charity Commissioner has to see whether the education of the girls is important or the Gusai Trust and should make necessary change in the better interest of the Trust. According to him, Charity Commissioner should have a broader view of the matter and consider it in its correct perspective rather than going on technicalities of administration. 7. There is no force in the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel, Mr.Nanavati, as it transpires from the record that two applications made earlier under Section 36 of the Act before the Charity Commissioner did not have any effect. It appears that the first application was withdrawn and in the second application, the parties did not remain and hence, it was dismissed by the Charity Commissioner. It appears that the first application was withdrawn and in the second application, the parties did not remain and hence, it was dismissed by the Charity Commissioner. Now it would not lie in the mouth of the appellants to submit that they will make application under Section 36 seeking permission to regularize running of school in the interest of girls. It is mandatory to obtain permission under Section 36 of the Act once any transaction is entered into by the party by way of sale, lease or by any other mode of transfer. In the present case, prima facie, though no permission was granted by the Charity Commissioner under Section 36, properties were transferred by the defendant No.1 to the defendant No.2 clearly indicating breach of Section 36 and hence, it was rightly held by the trial court that lease deed Ex.81 executed between the defendants on 29-10-1976 was void and defendant No.2 was in illegal possession of the suit property pursuant to the sale deed. No other submissions were made by learned counsel, Mr.Nanavati. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment and order dated 31-3-1982 passed by learned District Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj, does not require any interference. 8. It is an admitted fact that after execution of the lease deed Ex.81 dated 29-10-1976, School was constructed on the said land wherein 412 girls are studying at present in the classes from Standards 5th to 8th. Learned counsel, Mr.Nanavati, therefore, submitted that this is the only Girls School in the area and hence, in the interest of girl students, some arrangements are required to be made. There is substance in the said submission. 9. Learned counsel, Mr.S.M.Shah, however, submitted that the Trust will submit application for adding educational activities in the object of the Trust before the Charity Commissioner and in that event, the said application may be directed to be decided in accordance with law keeping in mind the fact that the School has been running since 1974. It is assured by learned counsel, Mr.Shah that the Trust will not withdraw the said application under any circumstances. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. It is assured by learned counsel, Mr.Shah that the Trust will not withdraw the said application under any circumstances. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. The original defendant No.2 will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to Gusai Panch Trust by 31st May, 2011, irrespective of any decision that will be taken by the Charity Commissioner in the application which will be submitted by the defendant Trust under Section 50 of the Act as early as possible and it will not be withdrawn by the Trust. When such an application is moved, the Charity Commissioner will decide the same at the earliest in accordance with law and without being influenced by this judgment. If the decision is not in favour of the defendant Trust, the Trust will see to it that the girl students presently studying in the School run by it are accommodated in its other Schools. No order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back to the court below forthwith.