SHRI MALLIKARJUN DEVASTHAN, SHELGIversusSUBHASH MALLIKARJUN BIRAJDAR AND OTHERS

                  [2024] 5 S.C.R. 62 : 2024 INSC 339

               Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi
                                v.
             Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar and Others
                  (Civil Appeal Nos. 5323 - 5324 of 2024)
                                 25 April 2024
               [A.S. Bopanna and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether delay in submitting Change Report to record name in
       register maintained u/s 7 Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (1950
       Act) in relation to the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) of a Public Trust,
       can be condoned. Further, consequence of Change Report being
       submitted beyond stipulated time of 90 days u/s 22(1) 1950 Act.

                                   Headnotes
       Appellant was registered as a Public Trust u/s. 18 of the 1950
       Act – Mode of succession of managership was that Mallikarjun
       Mahalingappa Patil was to be the Vahiwatdar of the Trust and
       the eldest male member of his family was to succeed him –
       Vahiwatdar also empowered to co-opt others – First Change
       Report submitted by Jagdishchandra to record his name in
       register maintained u/s. 17 of the 1950 Act belatedly – First
       Change Report accepted and held to be legal and valid by
       Deputy Charity Commissioner – Jagdishchandra appointed
       four other persons as Trustees, by co-opting them – Second
       Change Report filed to record names of said four persons in
       register maintained u/s. 17 of the 1950 Act – Second Change
       Report held to be legal by Assistant Charity Commissioner –
       Appeals/Revision applications challenging orders accepting
       both Change Reports dismissed – Writ Petitions filed against
       orders accepting and confirming both Change Reports – Same
       allowed by High Court as no separate order passed by the
       Deputy Charity Commissioner, condoning delay of over 17
       years in filing of first Change Report as being contrary to s.
       22 1950 Act – Consequently, second Change Report could
       not be sustained.
       Held: S. 22 of the 1950 Act was amended in 2017 whereby proviso
       was added in s. 22(1) of the 1950 Act providing for condonation of
* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                              63

                    Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v.
                    Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar & Ors.

     delay in filing of a Change Report, if sufficient cause is shown – Not
     mandatory that written application be filed seeking condonation of
     delay and relief can be granted in that regard upon oral request,
     provided sufficient cause is shown for such delay – Even otherwise,
     2017 proviso merely clarificatory in nature – Wording of s. 22(1)
     of the 1950 Act, as it stood earlier, did not negate applicability of
     s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and in consequence, s. 5 of
     Limitation Act, 1963, could be invoked for condonation of delay in
     submission of Change Report – If Change Report not submitted
     within stipulated period, 1950 Act does not contemplate automatic
     invalidation of assumption of office as the Vahiwatdar of the Trust
     – Failure to file Change Reports would invite penal consequences
     that would flow only from orders passed by authorities concerned
     under the relevant provisions – When failure to file a Change Report
     would not be fatal in itself, delay in filing a Change Report cannot
     automatically impact the assumption of office by a Vahiwatdar of
     a Trust – Proviso added in s. 22(1) 1950 Act further indicates the
     same – There should be liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-
     pedantic approach while dealing with application for condonation
     of delay – Courts usually condone delay in filing as purpose is to
     advance justice. [Paras 19-22, 25]

                              Case Law Cited
           Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal & Ors. [2010] 8 SCR
           1104 : [2010] 12 SCC 159; Sesh Nath Singh & Anr.
           v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. &
           Anr [2021] 3 SCR 806 : [2021] 7 SCC 313; Esha
           Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur
           Nafar Academy & Ors. [2013] 9 SCR 782 : [2013] 12
           SCC 649 - relied on

                                 List of Acts
     Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Maharashtra Public Trusts Act,
     1950); Limitation Act, 1963.
                              List of Keywords
     Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 – s. 17 and s. 22; Condonation
     of delay; s. 5 Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to delay in submission
     of Change Report; Delay in filing Change Report curable defect;
     Assumption of office not automatically invalidated by delay.
64                                                          [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                            Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5323-5324
      of 2024
      From the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2019 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay in WP Nos. 8570 and 8571 of 2019
                         Appearances for Parties
      Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Nitin
      Habib, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Bhagwant Deshpande, M/S. Dr. R.R.
      Deshpande and Associates, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv., A. Selvin Raja, Advs. for the
      Respondents.
                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment
      Sanjay Kumar, J
1.    Leave granted.
2.    Acceptance of Change Reports in relation to the Vahiwatdar
      (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi,
      a Public Trust, is in issue. A learned Judge of the High Court of
      Judicature at Bombay invalidated such acceptance and remanded
      the matters to the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Solapur Region,
      Solapur, for consideration afresh. Hence, these appeals.
3.    Though, no interim orders were passed by this Court, we are informed
      that the orders of remand have not been acted upon owing to the
      pendency of these cases. Further, in terms of the High Court’s
      directions, the Vahiwatdar and the Trustees, whose names were
      already entered in the records, are continuing to administer the
      Trust as on date.
4.    Facts, to the extent relevant, played out thus: By application dated
      26.05.1952, Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil applied for registration of
      Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi, as a Public Trust, under Section
      18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, now known as Maharashtra
      Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1950’). The object of
      this Trust was the upkeep and maintenance of Shri Mallikarjun Temple
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                          65

                    Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v.
                    Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar & Ors.

     at Shelgi, North Solapur Taluka. Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi,
     was accordingly registered as a Public Trust. The mode of succession
     of managership and trusteeship, as provided in the application, was
     that Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil was to be the Vahiwatdar of the
     Trust and the eldest male member of his family was to succeed him.
     Further, the Vahiwatdar was also empowered to co-opt others, if and
     when necessary. Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil passed away in the
     year 1992 and his eldest son, Ashok Mallikarjun Patil, became the
     Vahiwatdar of the Trust. Thereafter, Ashok Mallikarjun Patil died on
     16.02.1997 and his brother, Jagdishchandra Mallikarjun Patil, took
     over. Jagdishchandra was the third son of Mallikarjun Mahalingappa
     Pati, but his elder brother, Satish Patil, the second son of Mallikarjun
     Mahalingappa Pati, had no interest in taking over as the Vahiwatdar
     of the Trust. Thus, Jagdishchandra assumed the role of Vahiwatdar
     though he was not the eldest male member in the family.
5.   It would be apposite at this stage to note the statutory scheme
     obtaining under the Act of 1950. Section 17 thereof mandates that,
     in every Public Trusts Registration Office or Joint Public Trusts
     Registration Office, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner
     concerned should keep and maintain such books, indices and other
     registers, as may be prescribed, which shall contain such particulars
     as may also be prescribed. Section 18 of the Act of 1950 provides
     for registration of Public Trusts upon application and prescribes the
     procedure therefor. Section 19 empowers the Deputy or Assistant
     Charity Commissioner concerned to make an inquiry upon receipt
     of an application for registration of a Public Trust under Section 18.
     Section 20 of the Act of 1950 states that, upon completion of such
     inquiry, the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner shall record
     his finding with reasons therefor and make an order for the payment
     of the registration fee, if he is satisfied. Section 21(1) requires the
     Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner to then make necessary
     entries in the register maintained under Section 17. Section 21(2)
     provides that the entries so made shall, subject to the provisions
     of the Act of 1950 and subject to any change recorded as per the
     provisions thereof, be final and conclusive.
6.   Section 22(1) of the Act of 1950, as it stood prior to 2017, stated
     that where any change occurs in any of the entries recorded in
     the register maintained under Section 17, the Trustee shall, within
66                                                           [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


      90 days from the date of occurrence of such change, report the
      same to the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner in charge
      of the Registration Office where the register is kept. Section 22(2)
      empowers the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner to hold
      an inquiry for the purpose of verifying the correctness of the entries
      or for ascertaining whether any change has occurred in any of the
      particulars, recorded in the register kept under Section 17. The first
      proviso to Section 22(2) states that, in case of change in the names
      and addresses of the Trustees and Managers etc., the Deputy or
      Assistant Charity Commissioner may provisionally accept the change
      and issue a notice inviting objections to such change within thirty
      days from the date of publication of such notice. The second proviso
      states that if no objections are received within that time, the order
      provisionally accepting the change shall become final and entry
      thereof shall be taken in the register kept under Section 17. The
      third proviso states that if objections are received within thirty days,
      the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may hold an inquiry
      in the prescribed manner and record a finding within three months
      from the date of filing objections.
7.    Section 22(3) of the Act of 1950 speaks of how the Deputy or Assistant
      Charity Commissioner is to record a finding after completing the
      aforestated inquiry, which may include a decision to remove the name
      of the Trust from the register by reason of the change. Further, it
      provides that the finding recorded shall be appealable to the Charity
      Commissioner. It then states that the Deputy or Assistant Charity
      Commissioner shall amend or delete the entries in the register in
      accordance with his finding, and if appeals or applications were
      made against such finding, in accordance with the final decision of
      the competent authority, and the amendment in the entries so made,
      subject to any further amendment on occurrence of a change or any
      cancellation of entries, shall be final and conclusive. Section 41D
      provides for the suspension, removal or dismissal of Trustees by
      the Charity Commissioner, if any of the grounds mentioned therein
      is satisfied. Such power can be exercised either on application of a
      Trustee or any person interested in the Trust and one of the grounds
      for such action being taken against the Trustee is continuous neglect
      of his duty or a breach of trust in respect of the Trust.
8.    Section 70 provides for appeals to the Charity Commissioner against
      the findings or orders of the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                        67

                    Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v.
                    Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar & Ors.

     in the cases enumerated under Section 70(1)(a) to 70(1)(e). Section
     70(1)(b) relates to findings under Section 22. Further, Section 70A(1)
     of the Act of 1950 empowers the Charity Commissioner to call for
     and examine, either suo motu or on an application, the record and
     proceedings of any of the cases before any Deputy or Assistant
     Charity Commissioner, mentioned in Section 70 thereof, for the
     purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of any finding
     or order recorded or passed by the Deputy or Assistant Charity
     Commissioner. Notably, the Act of 1950 was amended in the year
     2017, whereby a proviso was added in Section 22(1). This proviso
     states that the Deputy or Assistant Charity Commissioner may extend
     the period of 90 days for reporting the change, on being satisfied
     that there was a sufficient cause for not reporting the change within
     the stipulated period, subject to payment of costs by the reporting
     Trustee to the Public Trust Administration Fund.
9.   Given the above statutory milieu, it was incumbent upon Jagdishchandra
     to submit a Change Report within the stipulated 90 days but he did
     so, long thereafter, on 21.10.2015. He also filed a delay condonation
     application therewith, stating that he did not file the Change Report
     earlier by mistake as he was not aware about it. His report was
     taken on file as Change Report No. 899 of 2015. Judgment dated
     15.03.2016 was passed therein by the Deputy Charity Commissioner,
     Solapur. Thereby, the Change Report was held to be legal and valid,
     taking note of the fact that no one had taken an objection thereto. In
     consequence, Schedule 1, pertaining to the Trust, was directed to
     be amended after expiry of the appeal period. However, no appeal
     was filed against this judgment within such period.
10. Thereafter, Jagdishchandra appointed four other persons, viz., Kedar
    Patil, Shailesh Patil, Vishwajit Virajkumar Nandimath and Balasaheb
    Yelshetty as Trustees, by co-opting them on 28.03.2017. He filed
    Change Report No. 1177 of 2017 to record their names in the register
    maintained under Section 17 of the Act of 1950.
11. While so, five persons, viz., Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar, Abhijeet
    Prakash Birajdar, Kalyani Mallappa Birajdar, Sachin Shivanand
    Birajdar and Kedar Shivanna Birajdar, claiming to be the devotees of
    Shri Mallikarjun Temple at Shelgi filed an application under Section
    70A of the Act of 1950 before the Joint Charity Commissioner,
    Pune, against the judgment dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Deputy
68                                                          [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


      Charity Commissioner, Solapur, accepting Change Report No. 899
      of 2015. The same was taken on file as Revision Application No.
      61 of 2017. Therein, these five devotees questioned the eligibility of
      Jagdishchandra to be the Vahiwatdar of the subject Trust, alleging that
      he had ‘unlawfully, without having any kind of relation, by cheating
      and misleading villagers, society as well as the Hon’ble Court, filed
      the Change Report No. 899 of 2015 and obtained approval’. They
      further alleged that the Deputy Charity Commissioner had not made
      a proper inquiry on the Change Report. According to them, after the
      death of Ashok Mallikarjun Patil, the functioning of the Trust was
      being handled by the villagers and they had been looking after the
      worship and other programs and Jagdishchandra was just overseeing
      the Temple. They, however, did not make the delay on his part a
      ground of challenge.
12. However, Jagdishchandra filed an application in the revision pointing
    out that he had filed a delay condonation application in relation to the
    filing of Change Report No. 899 of 2015 and that pendency of the
    same may adversely affect his legal rights. He prayed that a finding
    be called for from the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Solapur, about
    the said application pending the revision. By order dated 29.01.2019,
    the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, held that the Change Report
    had been accepted, which meant that the delay stood condoned, and
    it was not necessary to call for a finding on the delay condonation
    application.
13. Thereafter, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, dismissed Revision
    Application No. 61 of 2017 filed by the five devotees, vide judgment
    dated 09.07.2019. Therein, the Joint Charity Commissioner observed
    that Jagdishchandra was the son of Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil,
    at whose behest the Public Trust had been registered. He noted
    that Jagdishchandra was the third son and that the other four sons,
    including Satish, who was older than Jagdishchandra, had filed
    affidavits stating that they consented to his appointment as Trustee.
    The Joint Charity Commissioner also noted that the revision applicants
    were not members of the family of Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil and
    that their other revision, being Revision Application No. 60 of 2017,
    challenging the order dated 17.06.1954 passed in Inquiry Application
    No. 25 of 1952, pertaining to the registration of the subject Trust,
    had already been dismissed on 10.10.2017.
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                         69

                    Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v.
                    Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar & Ors.

14. In the meanwhile, as regards Change Report No. 1177 of 2017
    pertaining to the co-option of four Trustees by Jagdishchandra, the
    Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur, delivered judgment dated
    18.04.2018. Therein, while noting that some of the devotees of the
    Temple had filed objections to the said report, he ultimately held that
    the Change Report was legal and acceptable. The opponents to the
    Change Report had contended that Jagdishchandra was not the
    eldest son of Mallikarjun Mahalingappa Patil, but the Assistant Charity
    Commissioner noted that Ashok Mallikarjun Patil, the eldest son, had
    died issueless and the second son, Satish, claimed no interest in
    the Trust. Further, the Assistant Charity Commissioner took note of
    the fact that the revision filed against the registration of the subject
    Trust had been dismissed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune.
    The Assistant Charity Commissioner, accordingly, concluded that
    the Change Report was acceptable, subject to the decision in the
    revision filed against the judgment in relation to Change Report No.
    899 of 2015 pending before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune.
15. Aggrieved by this judgment, two of the devotees, Shivshankar
    Revansidha Birajdar and Prakash Sangappa Birajdar, filed Appeal
    No. 79 of 2018 before the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, under
    Section 70 of the Act of 1950. The said appeal was dismissed
    by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune, vide judgment dated
    09.07.2019. Therein, the Joint Charity Commissioner held that as
    Revision Application No. 61 of 2017 pertaining to Change Report
    No. 899 of 2015 was dismissed by a separate judgment on that day,
    Jagdishchandra stood confirmed as the Vahiwatdar of the subject
    Trust and, therefore, he had a right to co-opt Trustees.
16. Assailing the dismissal of their Revision Application No. 61 of 2017,
    vide judgment dated 09.07.2019, confirming the judgment dated
    15.03.2016 passed by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner,
    Solapur, in respect of Change Report No. 899 of 2015, the five
    devotees filed W.P. No. 8570 of 2019 before the High Court of
    Judicature at Bombay. Therein, for the very first time, they raised the
    ground of delay of more than 17 years on the part of Jagdishchandra
    in filing a Change Report after the death of Ashok Mallikarjun Patil
    on 16.02.1997.
17. Challenging the dismissal of their Appeal No. 79 of 2018, vide judgment
    dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune,
70                                                          [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                             Digital Supreme Court Reports


       confirming the judgment dated 18.04.2018 passed by the Assistant
       Charity Commissioner, Solapur, in respect of Change Report No.
       1177 of 2017, the two devotees filed W.P. No. 8571 of 2019 before
       the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
18. By common judgment dated 27.08.2019, a learned Judge of the
    High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed both the writ petitions.
    The point that weighed with the learned Judge was that there was
    no separate order passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner,
    Solapur, condoning the delay of over 17 years in the filing of the first
    Change Report. This, according to the learned Judge, was contrary
    to Section 22 of the Act of 1950. He accordingly held that acceptance
    of Jagdishchandra as the Vahiwatdar under Change Report No. 899
    of 2015 could not be sustained and, in consequence, his Change
    Report No. 1177 of 2017 could also not be sustained. It is on this sole
    ground that the learned Judge restored the proceedings in relation to
    both the Change Reports to the file and directed the Deputy Charity
    Commissioner, Solapur, to decide them afresh. The learned Judge
    further directed that the position existing as on that date should be
    maintained, i.e., Jagdischandra and his nominated Trustees, who
    were administering the Trust, were permitted to continue to administer
    the Trust in accordance with law.
19. Before we proceed to consider the matter on merits, we may again
    note the fact that the Act of 1950 was amended in 2017, whereby
    a proviso was added in Section 22(1), providing for condonation of
    delay in the filing of a Change Report, if sufficient cause is shown
    therefor. It may be noted that no such proviso was in existence
    at the time Change Report No. 899 of 2015 was submitted by
    Jagdishchandra. Despite the same, he had filed a delay condonation
    application therewith praying for condonation of the delay on his part
    in filing the report. It is well settled that it is not mandatory that a
    written application be filed seeking condonation of delay and relief
    can be granted in that regard even upon an oral request, provided
    sufficient cause is shown for such delay [See Bhagmal and others
    vs. Kunwar Lal and others1 and Sesh Nath Singh and another vs.
    Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another2].


1     [2010] 8 SCR 1104 : (2010) 12 SCC 159
2     [2021] 3 S.C.R. 806 : (2021) 7 SCC 313
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                          71

                    Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v.
                    Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar & Ors.

20. The proviso added in Section 22(1) in the year 2017 is merely
    clarificatory in nature as is evident from the fact that it was ‘added’
    in Section 22(1) and it did not bring about any substantive change.
    Even in the absence thereof, the wording of Section 22(1) of the Act
    of 1950, as it stood earlier, did not negate the applicability of Section
    29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, and in consequence, Section 5 of
    the Limitation Act, 1963, could be invoked for condonation of the
    delay in the submission of a Change Report. Significantly, the High
    Court did not call for the original file to verify whether the Deputy
    Charity Commissioner, Solapur, had passed a separate order on
    the delay condonation application, condoning the delay in exercise
    of such power. In any event, the Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune,
    proceeded on the understanding that the delay had already been
    condoned. He passed an order to that effect on 29.01.2019 and that
    order was never challenged by the applicants in Revision Application
    No.61 of 2017, viz., the Birajdar family. Once that order attained
    finality, it is not open to them to ignore the same and reopen the
    issue of delay before the High Court. All the more so, when the issue
    of delay was never raised by them in Revision Application No. 61 of
    2017 and was raised for the very first time only in the writ petition
    filed against the judgment passed therein.
21. Further, what is of greater import is as to what would be the
    consequence of a Change Report being submitted belatedly. In the
    event a new Vahiwatdar takes over a Trust and, be it for whatever
    reason, he fails to submit a Change Report within the stipulated
    period of 90 days, what would be the fallout thereof? The provisions
    of the Act of 1950 do not contemplate automatic invalidation of
    his assumption of office as the Vahiwatdar of the Trust in such a
    situation. Once a Trust is registered as a Public Trust under Section
    18 of the Act of 1950, it becomes the statutory duty of the authorities
    concerned to maintain proper records in relation to such Trust,
    including the particulars of its Administrators and Trustees. The
    Change Report in that regard has to be filed before the authorities
    concerned to facilitate timely updating of records after hearing all
    the parties concerned, as the statute provides for objections being
    raised against a Change Report. Delay or failure in doing so would
    mean that the records would not stand updated promptly. Objectors
    to the changes in the Trust, if any, can always take recourse to the
    remedies provided under the Act of 1950, complaining of the failure or
72                                                           [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                             Digital Supreme Court Reports


       delay in the filing of a Change Report and the adverse consequences
       of such changes, if any.
22. Notably, as per the statutory scheme, failure to file Change Reports
    would invite penal consequences under Section 66 of the Act of 1950,
    which provides that whoever contravenes Section 22 and fails to
    report a change would be liable to pay a fine of ₹10,000/-. Continued
    failure to do so may invite more adverse consequences, as provided
    in the Act of 1950, but such consequences would flow from the orders
    passed by the authorities concerned under the relevant provisions
    and would not stem from such failure automatically. Therefore, when
    failure to file a Change Report would not be fatal in itself, the delay in
    filing a Change Report cannot automatically impact the assumption
    of office by a Vahiwatdar of a Trust. The very fact that a proviso was
    added in Section 22(1) of the Act of 1950, enabling the authority
    concerned to condone the delay in the filing of the Change Report,
    if sufficient cause is made out, clearly indicates that such delay is
    curable and the delay in filing a Change Report would not, by itself,
    entail non-acceptance or nullification of the changes in the Trust
    which are sought to be informed to the authorities with delay. In
    Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur
    Nafar Academy and others3, this Court observed that there should
    be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while
    dealing with an application for condonation of delay as Courts are
    not supposed to legalize injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
23. That apart, it appears that the devotees, all bearing the same family
    name ‘Birajdar’, who are raising objections seem to have a grievance
    with the very registration of the subject Trust, but their revision in
    that regard stood dismissed and appears to have attained finality.
    After such dismissal, in the capacity of being devotees of the Temple,
    they can have no legitimate grievance with regard to the succession
    to the post of Vahiwatdar of the subject Trust. More so, when the
    eldest male member in the founder’s family has no issue with it.
24. Though it has been contended before us on behalf of the devotees
    that the Trust is not taking proper care of the Temple, we are of the
    opinion that such an issue cannot be a ground for them to challenge
    the Change Reports relating to the Vahiwatdar and the Trustees


3     [2013] 9 S.C.R. 782 : (2013) 12 SCC 649
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                            73

                    Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, Shelgi v.
                    Subhash Mallikarjun Birajdar & Ors.

     of the subject Trust. Separate machinery is provided in the Act of
     1950 to address such issues and it is for them to take recourse to
     such statutory remedies, if so advised. Their repeated attempts to
     attack the Change Reports relating to assumption of office by the
     new administration of the Trust only indicates their inimical attitude
     thereto and to the family of the founder, Mallikarjun Mahalingappa
     Patil. All in all, much ado about nothing!
25. Viewed thus, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge of the
    High Court of Judicature at Bombay adopted a rather hypertechnical
    approach by attaching so much importance to the delay in the
    submission of the first Change Report. Much did not turn upon the
    same as it was a curable defect. In any event, it had no impact on
    the change that had been brought about in the subject Trust but
    which was informed to the authorities belatedly.
26. The common judgment dated 27.08.2019 passed by the High Court
    of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 8570 and 8571 of
    2019, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
     In consequence, acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015
     and 1177 of 2017 is confirmed.
     Both the civil appeals are allowed.
     Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
     Parties shall bear their own costs.


     Headnotes prepared by:                                Result of the case:
     Aandrita Deb, Hony. Associate Editor                   Appeals allowed.
     (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.)