A. B. Chaudhari, J. - (1.)Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the counsel for rival parties.
(2.)These second appeals have been filed by most of the newly enrolled members of both the rival sides and one of them is old member out of 80. The following substantial question of law is framed.
Substantial Question

Whether the new or old members of the trust enrolled by both the group i. e. group led by Deelipsing Patil and group led by Shakil Musa Patel were necessary parties before the District Court in the proceedings U/Sec. 72(1) of the Trust Act and whether they are aggrieved persons

Answer

No.

(3.)Mr. P. M. Shah, the learned senior advocate with Mr. S. P. Shah, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R. R. Mantri, Mr. V. D. Salunke, Mr. Sidhartha Yawalkar, Mr. S. P. Brahme, the learned advocates appearing for appellants in these appeals made the following submissions.
A. That, the appellants represented by them in these second appeals are amongst the newly enrolled members from the list of members by the group led by Shakil Musa Patel and Deelipsing Patil over and above original 80 members and their membership was found to be valid by the Jt. C. C. in his order dated 07.05.2003 against which the District Court allowed M. C. A. No. 119/2003 and reversed the said order dated 07.05.2003. According to the learned counsel for appellants, none of these newly added members or the old members of the Trust were added as party to the miscellaneous application U/Sec. 72(1) of the Trust Act before the District Court and, therefore, they being necessary party, the impugned judgment recorded by the District Court is in violation of principles of natural justice, since they were not heard. Since the membership of newly enrolled members is taken away for the first time under the judgment and order dated 24.01.2013 made by District Court, they are the aggrieved persons.

B. Since none of them were arrayed as party to applications U/Sec. 72(1) of the Trust Act, and were the aggrieved persons, the miscellaneous civil applications are required to be remanded to the District Court for adding them as party to the proceedings and for fresh hearing.

C. These newly enrolled members had been on the list right after the order dated 07.05.2003 and have also participated in the elections held in the year 2003 and 2008 and, therefore, their membership had become operational. Some of the members out of old and new were also elected as trustees of the trust.

D. These appellants are the aggrieved persons in law and have right to file instant second appeals against the impugned judgment recorded by the District Court U/Sec. 72(1) of the Trust Act. Mr. Shah, the learned senior advocate relied on the decision in a case of Union Carbide Corporation, etc. Vs. Union of India, etc., 1992 AIR(SC) 248.

E. Mr. Mantri, Mr. Salunke, Mr. Yawalkar and Mr. Brahme also advanced their submission partly on merits assailing the judgment recorded by the District Court, so also Mr. P. M. Shah, the learned senior advocate. According to all the learned counsel, perusal of the judgment of the District Court shows a cursory approach by even recording wrong statement of facts in the judgment in as much as the new members were never enrolled after formation of committee of fit persons on 28.03.2002, but were enrolled in the year 2000 itself. But in the impugned judgment, the District Court has stated that they were enrolled by the adhoc committee of fit persons after its appointment. The learned counsel, therefore, went on to argue that the error committed by the District Judge goes to the root of the matter and hence remand order is necessary. Mr. Shah, the learned senior advocate also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in a case of H. Siddiqui (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. A. Ramalingam, 2011 4 SCC 240(para 11).