JUDGMENT : The application filed by the appellants-plaintiffs for grant of leave to file suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure came to be rejected by District Judge 2, Akola vide his impugned order dated 27/7/2015 in M.J.C.No.138/2013. Against the said order the instant appeal is preferred. Facts of the appeal are to the effect that appellants have filed the suit before the trial Court for proper administration of suit property and vesting the property in the name of the proposed trust. 2. The first relief which is claimed in the suit is of mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendant nos. 1 to 9 & 11 and 12 to vest the suit property in the trust by removing their names in the revenue record, in their individual capacity and to further maintain the same in the name of trust by making necessary compliances with the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner. Second relief claimed is of directing the respondents-defendants to cultivate the suit property, as a property of trust and not in their individual capacity and comply the requirements and purpose of the trust. Thus, as rightly observed by the trial Court the appellants have filed the suit to maintain the interest and to safeguard the property of proposed trust. 3. In view thereof, as held in the judgment of this Court in the case of Jankibai Prahladrai Brijlal Seksaria Vs. Kashinath Raghunath Kelkar and others,1971BCI 32 the bar under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, clearly becomes applicable in view of Section 79 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. 4. Section 79 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act,1950 reads as follow: “79(1) Any question, whether or not a trust exists and such trust is a public trust or particular property is the property of such trust, shall be decided by the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner in appeal as provided by this Act. (2) The decision of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner in appeal, as the case may be shall, unless set aside by the decision of the court on application or of the High Court, in appeal, be final and conclusive”. (2) The decision of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner or the Charity Commissioner in appeal, as the case may be shall, unless set aside by the decision of the court on application or of the High Court, in appeal, be final and conclusive”. Section 80 of the said Act which follows provides that, “Bar of Jurisdiction: Save as expressly provided in the Act, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act to be decided or dealt with by any officer or authority under the Act, or in respect of which the decision or order of such officer or authority has been made final and conclusive.” 5. Thus, as observed in the reported authority, “in view of provisions of Section 79 it is clear that the question whether a particular property is the property of the trust is required to be decided by the Charity Commissioner or his Assistants. The words used are “shall be decided by” . Therefore the said provision being mandatory, in pursuance of Section of 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act it will clearly preclude the Civil Court from deciding that question”. 6. In the instant case, the appellants have not shown any provision to the extent that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is saved by any other provision contained in the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Hence, as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly ousted in view of Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the suit under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure is not tenable. The appellants are having efficacious remedy to seek relief before the appropriate forum under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Learned trial Court has thus rightly refused to grant leave to the appellants to file civil suit in the Court under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is therefore just, legal and correct. Hence, no interference is required therein. Appeal therefore stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.