JUDGMENT Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order passed by the Principal District Judge, Wardha, in a Trust Appeal, whereby an order dated 30.12.2006, passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, on a scheme application, was confirmed. 3. The facts in brief leading upto filing of the present petition are that a Trust called 'Shri Mahadeo Deosthan, Babapur', came to be registered on 21.06.1955, under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, which was essentially concerned with a temple. The movable and immovable properties of the Trust were specified and the order passed by Registrar Public Trusts recorded that the mode of succession of office of Trustees of the Trust was by law of inheritance. 4. The original person concerned with the aforesaid Trust was one 'Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe'. On 19.08.1959, the Registrar Public Trusts passed an order, considering the mode of succession as inheritance and held that Gulabrao Dajiba Kombe was the successor as Trustee of the said Trust in place of 'Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe', who had expired. Thereafter, the Trust came to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, now rechristened as the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1950), and an entry to that effect was made in the register on 11.01.1963. Here again, it was recorded that the mode of succession of Trustees was by law of inheritance. 5. During the course of functioning of the said Trust, it appears that certain controversy arose as regards the management of the same, in the context of the temple. Certain complaints were made and eventually on 22.11.1995, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, exercising powers under the Act of 1950, passed an order holding that framing of a scheme was necessary for the better and proper management of the Trust. Accordingly, power was exercised under Section 50A of the Act of 1950, and the parties were directed to file respective draft schemes along with details of persons proposed to be appointed as Trustees. In pursuance thereof, it appears that draft schemes were filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and an order was passed thereon. But, on challenge raised before the District Court, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 6. In pursuance thereof, it appears that draft schemes were filed before the Assistant Charity Commissioner and an order was passed thereon. But, on challenge raised before the District Court, the said order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Charity Commissioner. 6. Eventually on 30.12.2006, the Assistant Charity Commissioner, partly allowed the application under Section 50A of Act of 1950. The schemes proposed by the applicants as well as the non- applicants were rejected and instead scheme framed at Annexure - A to the said order was approved and sanctioned by the Office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The Trustees mentioned in the schemes of the rival parties were held to be Adhoc Trustees and it was directed that election would be held. It is relevant that amongst the applicants in the said proceedings, before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, as on today, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the surviving applicants. Similarly, there were two non -applicants in the said proceedings before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, of whom only one non-applicant i.e. the petitioner before this Court is surviving. 7. The petitioner and his co-non-applicant i.e. his father were aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2006, passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and they challenged the same before the Court of Principal District Judge, Wardha, by filing Trust Appeal No.1/2007. By the impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2015, the appeal stood dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed present writ petition, wherein notice was issued and the respondents appeared through counsel. 8. Mr. Bhoyar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgments and orders deserved to be interfered with for the reason that specific mode of succession recorded in the documents showing registration of the Trust under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951, as also the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, was recorded as succession by law of inheritance. Both the Assistant Charity Commissioner as well as the District Court failed to appreciate the significance of the said entry made in the context of the Trust, while rejecting the scheme proposed by the petitioner and imposing the scheme at Annexure-A to the order dated 30.12.2006. It was submitted that, as the mode of succession was by law of inheritance, only the family members of the original person i.e. Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe, could be Trustees in the said Trust. It was submitted that, as the mode of succession was by law of inheritance, only the family members of the original person i.e. Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe, could be Trustees in the said Trust. It was further submitted that reliance placed on the purported Trust Deed of the year 1948 by the Assistant Charity Commissioner was misplaced and that therefore, the present writ petition deserved to be allowed. 9. It was further submitted that in any case, even as per the position of law relied upon by the respondents in the case of Subhash Trimbakrao Inamdar and Ors. Vs. Pandurang Tansingh Savner and Ors. 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 131 , members of the family of the original person i.e. Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe were clearly entitled to be Trustees of the aforesaid Trust, for the reason that the mode of succession was recorded as law of inheritance in the aforesaid document pertaining to the registration of the Trust. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Sohoni, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that due to mismanagement of the affairs of the Trust, a complaint was filed and even if the mode of succession was to be taken as the law of inheritance, nothing prevented the authorities under the provisions of the Act of 1950, to pass appropriate directions for appointment of Trustees to fulfill the object of the Trust. It was submitted that merely because the mode of succession was law of inheritance, there was no prohibition on the power that could be exercised by the Assistant Charity Commissioner under the Act of 1950, to appoint Trustees who were not members of the family of Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe. 11. It was submitted that the Trust deed of 1948, was correctly relied upon by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, and as noted by the District Court in the impugned judgment and order, one member of the aforesaid family was indeed part of the adhoc body of Trustees and that therefore, no interference was warranted. 12. 11. It was submitted that the Trust deed of 1948, was correctly relied upon by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, and as noted by the District Court in the impugned judgment and order, one member of the aforesaid family was indeed part of the adhoc body of Trustees and that therefore, no interference was warranted. 12. As regards, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the context of the position of law laid down by this Court in the case of Subhash Trimbakrao Inamdar (supra), it was submitted that the contesting respondents were not averse to a member of the aforesaid family being aTrustee in the aforesaid Trust, but the respondents were opposing the insistence of the petitioners that all Trustees should be exclusively from the said family. 13. This writ petition was heard for some time on 11.04.2022 and after hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and appreciating the position of law laid down by this Court, it was observed that the learned counsel could take instructions from their respective clients, as regards appropriate modification of the scheme at Annexure-A to the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, in order to partly satisfy the grievance of the petitioner and to bring the scheme in line with the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Subhash Trimbakrao Inamdar and Ors. (supra). 14. A perusal of the said judgment shows that even if the mode of succession is by the law of inheritance and there are to be hereditary Trustees in a Trust, it has been held that there is no prohibition on the authorities under the Act of 1950, to take appropriate steps for appointment of Trustees and to frame appropriate scheme in furtherance of the object of the Trust. But, at the same time, it has been laid down that it would be appropriate that the family, which had started the Trust, gets due representation in the Board of Trustees. It is in the light of the aforesaid position of law laid down by this Court, that hearing of the writ petition was adjourned for the learned counsel for the rival parties to take appropriate instructions. 15. It is in the light of the aforesaid position of law laid down by this Court, that hearing of the writ petition was adjourned for the learned counsel for the rival parties to take appropriate instructions. 15. Thereafter, the parties filed further submissions in the present writ petition and in the submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner, it was suggested that a new clause could be inserted in the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.12.2006, which could be numbered as clause 9A. This Clause would ensure that at least one member of the family of Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe, as on today the petitioner before this Court, could be incorporated as a Trustee and in the Board of Trustees under the said scheme and in the future, the member of the said family as 'Trustee' would suggest in writing the name of his successor to the authorities under the Act of 1950, so that such new person from the family could be incorporated as a Trustee in the said Trust. This would take care of the mode of succession as being the law of inheritance. It was submitted that the appointment of such Trustee by inheritance from the family of Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe would be notwithstanding the number of Trustees specified in Clause 7 of the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. It was further submitted that such a Trustee from the family of Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe would enjoy all the rights and privileges, as would be enjoyed by the other trustees under the said Trust. In fact, the rival parties jointly suggested the following additional clause in the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner :- 16. In the context of the aforesaid clause jointly suggested by the parties, one aspect was highlighted on behalf of the contesting respondents in their reply to the submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was suggested therein as follows : '5. In the context of the aforesaid clause jointly suggested by the parties, one aspect was highlighted on behalf of the contesting respondents in their reply to the submissions filed on behalf of the petitioner. It was suggested therein as follows : '5. The respondent No.2 Ramdasji Barde on his behalf and on behalf of respondent No.1 Purushottam Wamanrao Kombe, submits that they do not have any objection to insert Clause-9-A in the scheme approved by Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha on 30.12.2006 in Enquiry No.7/1994 and further requests this Hon'ble Court may kindly make it clear that the Trustee which is suggested and will be suggested in future from the family of deceased Mahadeo Krishnaji Kombe will not have any ownership right or possessory right over the Trust properties.' 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner did not have any objection to this Court holding that the Trustee from the family of Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe, as per the aforementioned new clause proposed to be added, will not have any ownership right or possessory right over the Trust properties. 18. In view of the above, and particularly in the light of the parties having agreed to put an end to the controversy by inserting the above quoted proposed new clause 9A, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition can be conveniently disposed of in the following manner :- A) The orders passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the District Court, impugned in the present writ petition, stand modified. B) The modification is to the extent that although the scheme framed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Annexure A to the order dated 30.12.2006 is upheld, the above quoted Clause 9A shall stand inserted therein, so that the scheme shall be read accordingly as having incorporated the aforesaid new Clause 9A. C) Accordingly, the petitioner shall be the Trustee by mode of inheritance from the family of Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe and in the future he shall suggest a Trustee in his place from the family in terms of Clause 9A above. D) If the petitioner or the Trustee from the family in the future dies, without proposing the name of a member of the family of Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe to succeed, the family members of the said family shall propose the name as Trustee representing the family in the said Trust. D) If the petitioner or the Trustee from the family in the future dies, without proposing the name of a member of the family of Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe to succeed, the family members of the said family shall propose the name as Trustee representing the family in the said Trust. E) As agreed by the petitioner, insertion of Clause 9A to ensure that member of the family Mahadeo Krushnaji Kombe is a Trustee in the aforesaid Trust, will not lead to such trustee from the family claiming any ownership or possessory right over Trust properties. 19. The writ petition stands partly allowed in the above terms and accordingly, the impugned orders as also the scheme stand modified. 20. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.