Judgment : 1. The facts leading to this appeal, in nutshell are as follows:- (a) Late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar formed a society titled as “Buddhist Society of India”. It was registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. (b) Constitution of the society, is the principal document which governs the functioning of the society. Copy of original constitution is in the paperbook at Exhibit-B Page 73 to 80. (c) In view of Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, a Public Trust includes a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Therefore, an application for registration of this society as a Public Trust, under the B. P. T. Act, 1956 was submitted by Shri B. S. Gaikwad. (d) Legal heirs of late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had claimed certain interest in the property and to that extent they had objected to the recording of those assets as the property of the Trust. It appears that later on said claim was not pursued by those heirs. (e) After completing the inquiry in the application for registration of the society Buddhist Society of India as a Trust, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai ordered registration thereof as a public trust and also made declaration as regards certain property being the property of the Trust. (f) It is alleged that the General Council of the society had chosen Yeshwant Bhimrao Ambedkar as Chairman of the society after death of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar. (g) After death of Yeshwant Ambedkar his wife Meeratai Ambedkar was chosen to be the President. A resolution to that effect was adopted on 6/10/1977, copies whereof is at Page 96 Exhibit-D. (h) Change report was filed before Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mumbai for bringing on record of the Buddhist Society of India, in Schedule I, due to election of Meeratai Yeshwant Ambedkar as the Chairman of society. (i) The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Mumbai rejected the prayer for registration of change by order dated 14/10/1997. Copy of said order dated 14/10/1977 is at Page 97. (j) In said order dated 14/10/1977, learned Assistant Charity Commissioner has observed that the Constitution of trust does not contain adequate and proper provisions as regards the management of society, and observed therefore, that the parties should take recourse of framing of a comprehensive scheme. (k) Thereafter an application for framing of scheme was filed in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. It was registered as Application No. 192/1980. (k) Thereafter an application for framing of scheme was filed in the office of Joint Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. It was registered as Application No. 192/1980. It was prayed therein that comprehensive scheme be framed. (l) The application for framing of scheme was decided by the judgment and order dated 24/7/1981. (m) The Joint Charity Commissioner was pleased to frame the scheme and also appointed initial trustees under the scheme. Copy of the judgment and order is at Page 55 to 60 and copy of the scheme is at Page 61 to 72. (n) The judgment and order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner thereby framing scheme was challenged by Meeratai Yeshwant Ambedkar in City Civil Court, Mumbai, which was registered as Charity Application No.8 of 1981. (o) The learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai allowed the Charity Application No.8/1981 and has set aside the scheme framed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, by judgment and order dated 11/9/1987. (p) Present application under section 72(2) is filed by the applicants who had applied for framing of the scheme on 28th September, 1987. 2. Heard both sides at length and perused the record and precedents cited at bar. 3. When this appeal was admitted, practice of treating an application under section 72 (2) of the B. P. T. Act like a second appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code did not exist, which is now required. 4. Heard both sides on the point of framing substantial question of law, since any substantial question of law was not framed, now it is to be framed. 5. Parties were heard on the point of substantial question of law. Thereafter the substantial question of law as involved in this appeal is framed as follows:- “(a) Whether the Joint Charity Commissioner was within his jurisdiction in reaching a conclusion that it was necessary for better management and for admission of trust to frame the scheme? (b) If the Joint Charity Commissioner was within the four corners of his powers, can the judgment of Joint Charity Commissioner be set aside?” 6. (b) If the Joint Charity Commissioner was within the four corners of his powers, can the judgment of Joint Charity Commissioner be set aside?” 6. The arguments which are advanced in support of appeal are summarised as follows:- (a) The jurisdiction of the Joint Charity Commissioner as regarding framing of a scheme under section 51-A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1956 is in nature of exercise of power for ensuring proper management and administration of the trust, and has to be exercised for the better-proper management of the Trust. (b) The Joint Charity Commissioner had done the analysis of provisions of the Constitution and facts of the case i.e. the history of working of the society and also considered the observations of the Dy. Charity Commissioner about difficulty in succession to the office of Chairman. Thereafter the Joint Charity Commissioner had reached the conclusion that framing of the scheme was necessary for proper management and administration of trust. (c) Being the appellate authority in Civil law the City Civil Court could not have interfered in the judgment and order of the Joint Charity Commissioner without recording a finding that the Judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner, holding that the scheme was necessary, was contrary to law or perverse or otherwise unsustainable. (d) Learned Judge of City Civil Court erred in taking a view that in absence of provisions to elect the President of Trust, General Body of the Trust shall be competent to elect, and hence framing of the scheme was not necessary. (e) The City Civil Court ought to have given due consideration to the fact that the Joint Charity Commissioner had recorded a finding as to factual difficulties faced by the trust in the management due to non availability of members of General body who were scattered all over. (f) City Civil Court could not have set aside the judgment of Joint Charity Commissioner without recording a finding that the judgment of Joint Charity Commissioner was contrary to facts or contrary to law. (g) The foundation of the judgment of the City Civil Court is that Constitution on record being adequate, there is warrant in any manner for framing of scheme and this conclusion is arrived rather sheerly subjectively than objectively. (h) Interest of Trust and effective management of Trust ought to be the prime and paramount consideration, however, learned City Civil Court has lost sight thereof. (h) Interest of Trust and effective management of Trust ought to be the prime and paramount consideration, however, learned City Civil Court has lost sight thereof. 7. This appeal has been opposed by the contesting respondent on various grounds which are summarised as follows:- (a) It is a matter of record that after death of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar his son and thereafter his daughter-in-law were elected as trustees and the Trust was functional. (b) Existing mechanism for electing the President which was in vogue and therefore it cannot be said that there existed ambiguity in relation to the set of rules governing the management of the society. (c) Though the procedure for succession to the post of President was not provided or laid down in the constitution in specific and expressed words, it does not mean that this aspect can be dealt with in a democratic manner. Moreover the office of Chairperson could be filled in by hereditary succession. The position that the post of the President of the Trust may even be hereditary. (d) The judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner recording satisfaction that framing of scheme was necessary, is not supported by sound reasons. (e) The judgment of the appellate court i.e. City Civil Court holding that it was not necessary to frame scheme, is based on sound reasons incorporated therein, and do not call for interference. (f) It was totally unnecessary to frame the scheme. 8. This court has considered rival submissions and examined the record. 9. It is considered necessary to identify exact text in the body of judgment of the City Civil Court which forms the foundation of the conclusion reached by the learned Judge, City Civil Court. 10. The observations contained in paragraph nos.1 to 4 are as regards the background in which the trust was formed, was run in due course etc. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of the City Civil Court which forms the foundation of the judgment is paragraph 5. The text which is foundation as indicated reads as follows: “I have carefully gone through para 5 of this order and I do not see any substantial ground to introduce a new scheme and give a go by to the earlier scheme which was framed somewhere in 1972. The text which is foundation as indicated reads as follows: “I have carefully gone through para 5 of this order and I do not see any substantial ground to introduce a new scheme and give a go by to the earlier scheme which was framed somewhere in 1972. The learned Charity Commissioner has also appointed 7 persons as the trustees and from the record I do not see as to what happened to the previously elected body of which Miratai Ambedkar was president. In this situation with respect I do not agree to the view taken by the Joint Charity Commissioner, in introducing an entirely new scheme for the Trust. That order dated 24.7.81 is therefore set aside.” (Quoted from Page 18 of the paperbook) 11. In the operative order the learned Judge, City Civil Court has passed the following order:- “The result of this is that the old scheme is ultimately restored and in case any of the trustees of members of the society desire any change in the scheme they are free to approach the charity Commissioner for suitable modification with notice to all the members Trustees. In the result, the Charity Application No.8/81 is allowed. The order dated 24.7.81 is set aside. The costs of the Charity Commissioner to be paid from the funds of the Trust. (Quoted from Page 18 of appeal paperbook) 12. Now this court has to analyse the judgment and further examine as to what may be the basis on which the learned Judge, City Civil Court has proceeded. The points on which the City Civil Court has based its findings as can be gathered from the body of judgment, are as follows: (a) In the inquiry conducted at the time of registration of trust being application filed bearing No. 507 of 1960 decided on 6/7/1962, the constitution as it was in existence was accepted. (b) The mechanism which was provided in the original constitution was adequate to run and manage the trust. (c) The foundation of judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner that provisions contained in the constitution as regards election of the President is not adequate and needs to be supplemented, is erroneous. (d) In absence of specific provision in the rules the democratic procedure could be followed and, therefore, the General Council who was highest body was competent to elect the President. (d) In absence of specific provision in the rules the democratic procedure could be followed and, therefore, the General Council who was highest body was competent to elect the President. (e) The practice of electing the President by the General Council was in vogue and was operated. It was adequate, and hence framing of scheme was not necessary for proper management and administration of the trust. 13. In order to identify the findings and exact basis of the judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner which was under the scrutiny of the City Civil Court, it is necessary to have a look at the judgment of Joint Charity Commissioner. 14. This court has perused the judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is seen that reasons recorded by the Joint Charity Commissioner for framing the scheme are seen in paragraph 5 thereof. Rest of the judgment pertains to the reasons as regards appointment of the trustee. The part of the judgment which pertains to appointment of the trustees is consequential to the finding in favour of framing of scheme. 15. Therefore, the finding which was subject to scrutiny before the City Civil Court are as seen in paragraph 5 only. It would be useful to refer to the said finding by quotation. The relevant portion is quoted as under: “5. No so far settlement of the scheme is concerned, I have carefully gone through the Rules and Regulations of this Sanstha but I find that they are not quite proper and sufficient to manage the day to day affairs of the Trust. Even though the mode is by way of election there is no provision in the Rules as to the process of the elections be held. In fact I find that no elections have been held. Therefore it is necessary to settle the scheme and accordingly I give my finding in affirmative on issue No.1.” (Quoted from page 57 of the paperbook ) 16. Now this court has to consider whether there existed grounds on facts or law by way of justification for enabling the Joint Charity Commissioner for arriving at the conclusion that “framing of scheme is necessary”. 17. The copy of constitution as originally existed is on record of paperbook of appeal at Page 73. 18. Now this court has to consider whether there existed grounds on facts or law by way of justification for enabling the Joint Charity Commissioner for arriving at the conclusion that “framing of scheme is necessary”. 17. The copy of constitution as originally existed is on record of paperbook of appeal at Page 73. 18. The clause which relates to the office of President is clause (vii), which reads as follows: “VII President: (1) The Society shall have a President. The term of the President shall be for his life. (2) The first President of the society shall be Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, M. A. Ph. D. D.Sc. Barrister-at-Law. (3) The President shall appoint a Treasurer and Secretary. He will have the right to prescribe their term of office. (4) The President shall have power (i) to create such offices as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Society, (ii) to appoint to them such persons as he may deem fit; and (iii) to assign duties and functions to persons carrying on the administration of the affairs of the Society. (5) The President shall have power to open centers at different places in India for carrying on the work of the Society and appoint workers and office bearers thereto.” (Quoted from Page 77 of the paperbook) 19. It would be also useful to refer to the provision as regards the powers of management laid down in the constitution of the society. Said provisions are contained in clause “X”. It would be useful to refer to said clause by quotation, which reads as follows: “X. MANAGEMENT: (1) The affairs of the Society shall be managed by the President. (2) All executive powers shall be vested in the President. (3) There shall be constituted an advisory council to aid the President in the discharge of his duty. (4) The advisory Council consist of ten members of the society at every 5th year. (5) The first members of the Advisory Council shall be nominated by the President. (6) The Advisory Council shall meet as and when required by the President. (7) The agenda shall be prepared by the President. (8) Any member may raise any question outside the Agenda if permitted by the President. (9) The resolutions of the Advisory Council shall be only recommendatory.” (Quoted from Page 79 of the paperbook) 20. (6) The Advisory Council shall meet as and when required by the President. (7) The agenda shall be prepared by the President. (8) Any member may raise any question outside the Agenda if permitted by the President. (9) The resolutions of the Advisory Council shall be only recommendatory.” (Quoted from Page 79 of the paperbook) 20. Perusal of the clauses which are quoted hereinbefore do demonstrate shall mean that Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar alone was the sole mentor and operator of the society, and he was vested with all powers. Considering his contribution, it was but natural that all powers of society were entrusted, vested and concentrated in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's contribution to the nation and to the downtrodden is the matter of a claim all over the world. This entrustment of powers must be because he was the flag bearer of the mass conversion of Harijans and the downtrodden to the Buddhist sect. 21. On perusal of clause (vii) it will be seen that since the society was founded by the towering personality namely Late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and considering the trust and the confidence which he commanded, the position of President, whole scheme and mechanism of Constitution was “Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar centric”. Thus the power of management is seen in the constitution which are again “President centric”. 22. Late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had many followers, however, he alone could have decided as to who could succeed him. However, this did not happen. The aspect of succession is totally absent in the Constitution. Therefore, the aspect as to who shall have the rein of society in absence of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar after his demise or relinquishment, is totally left to a void. 23. Any arrangement as to the manner in which the society shall run after the demise of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar is thus not even thought of. Now the power is left in the hands of persons who, themselves, may not claim to have acquired the height of elevation akin or comparable with the towering personality as Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar possessed. 24. Therefore total concentration and centralization of the powers with the President Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, at that time was an ideal arrangement and the code of governance. Babasaheb Ambedkar possessed. 24. Therefore total concentration and centralization of the powers with the President Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, at that time was an ideal arrangement and the code of governance. However, with the change in the situation, now the society is not in the reins of its creator and mentor, the concentration of powers on same ideology and, an undefined way of election, shall not and cannot constitute an ideal and/or a flawlessly workable code of governance. 25. Therefore, the frame and the form of the constitution of society, which was a gospel and salutory in past and has served as an ideal code, of governance, now turns out and presents to be wholly un-workable code of governance. The constitution, therefore, needs to be totally refurbished and overhauled, keeping in mind the passing away of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. 26. Now coming to the judgment of the City Civil Court, the Judge seems to have adopted simplistic approach. He found that democratic procedure is general rule and the text of the constitution which did not exclude the process of election would necessarily comprehend power to elect the President. This logical deduction done by the City Civil Court is good to argue but extremely difficult to actually live and operate. Therefore, in absence of modalities the said logic would turn out to be totally fallacious and fictional way of outlook, and to come on ground reality, codified rules of election are a need of hour. 27. It is pertinent to note that the City Civil Court could not forebear from expressing what has pinched the Judge from within. The said expression is seen in the operative part of impugned judgment. Relevant part is quoted in the foregoing paragraph 11. Relevant text is also underlined in said quotation. Said portion conclusively suggests that the same Judge too believed that need of a comprehensive scheme was about to be felt necessary. 28. The powers of the City Civil Court do not comprehend unlike powers of criminal court to find out whether the findings had two opinions and resort to one which would favour, particular party (an accused in a criminal case). In the court or forum of civil jurisdiction if facts on record and evidence as available, admits possibility of opinion taken by the subordinate court, such opinion has to be respected. In the court or forum of civil jurisdiction if facts on record and evidence as available, admits possibility of opinion taken by the subordinate court, such opinion has to be respected. The power to set aside the order under appeal becomes available for recourse and invocable by the appellate court only upon reaching conclusion that the findings and orders are contrary to law. 29. On the facts of present case during the regime of the towering personality of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar the same constitution, with its form and frame suited his personality and status. However, when it is seen from any angle, the old constitution would turn out to be totally mismatch in the circumstances which are ruling after passing away of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, though the successors to the office may be achievers in their own way, yet they too do not claim to be equal to or as great as Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was. 30. On seeing the case from any angle or kaleidoscopic perspectives, the conclusion that the Joint Charity Commissioner's order is contrary to law is difficult to subscribe. 31. In the result, judgment and order passed by the City Civil Court is rendered, apparently, without following basic canons of exercise of powers under appellate jurisdiction by the court of civil jurisdiction and object and spirit of B. P. T. Act and section 51-A in particular. 32. In the result the appeal has to succeed and it succeeds. 33. The substantial question of law framed by this court in beginning of hearing are answered as under: Question (a) In the affirmative. Question (b) The judgment of the Civil Court deserves to be set aside and the judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner is liable to be restored. 34. In the result appeal succeeds. The judgment and order of the City Civil Court dated 11th September 1987 passed in Charity Application No.8 of 1981 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order of the Joint Charity Commissioner dated 24th July, 1981 passed in Application No.192 of 1980 is restored. 35. The scheme shall become operative after 60 days from the date of this judgment.