J.M.SHELAT - (1.) * * *
(2.) But it was contended by Mr. Vakil that the findings arrived at by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the entries made by him on the basis of these findings are not binding upon the plaintiffs who claim to be the beneficiaries of the trust. His contention in this respect was two-fold: (1) That those findings are only for the purposes of registration and are as between the Charity Commissioner and the 1st defendant as a trustee and that those findings and the entries made on the basis thereof do not decide any question as to the rights of third parties and (2) That a suit by such third parties is not affected by the decision of the Charity Commissioner and therefore a Civil Court would have jurisdiction to try such a suit.
(3.) Mr. Vakil submitted that sections 17 18 19 and 20 of the Act deal only with registration of public trusts and not with the rights of parties and therefore sec. 80 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts does not and cannot oust the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to declare a finding under sections 19 and 20 to be illegal and void if such a finding has been arrived at as a result of fraud.;