SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.I., AND S.C. AGRAWAL AND DR A. S. ANAND, JJ.)
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF PACHAIYAPPAS TRUST
Versus
OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4168 and 4169 of 1988 { From the Judgment and Order dated October 28, 1987 and April 22, 1987 of the Madras High Court in C.M.P. No. 14618 of 1987 and O.S.A. No. 167 of 1986}, decided on November 17, 1993
Advocates appeared
S. Sivasubramanium, Senior Advocate (R. Mohan, R. Nedumaran and Dr P.B. Rao, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant;
V. Krishnamurthy, V. Balachandran, S. Srinivasan, Yashank Adhyaru and P.M. Parekh, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Transfer of Property Act - Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 - Sections 25,7 and 25 - Payment and restrictions - Partnership firm - Applicants vacate property - Execution of lease - property sought to be leased - Under a will executed testator made various bequests in favour of his children as well as other persons and bequeathed rest of his properties to Trustees of Pachaiyappas Charities subject to conditions, payment and restrictions mentioned therein - Official Trustee of Madras has been appointed as the executor and trustee of will and he has been empowered to sell and dispose of properties, immovable as well as moveable. O.P. No. of is original proceeding instituted in Madras High Court on basis of said will by Official Trustee - Properties vested in Official Trustee under the will is a vacant plot of land measuring about 5.65 grounds – Held, Objections raised by residuary legatee who was the beneficiary Trust, but also did not accept the suggestions made by Official Trustee in the interest of Trust - Matter of grant of leases and licences and award of contracts by executive the decisions of Court require authorities to apply standards or norms are not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant - People expect much higher standards from judiciary and rightly so - It would be a sad day if an impression gains ground judiciary is not free from the malaise that afflicts other fields of State activity – Court need say no more at this stage - Appeals are allowed
Judgment
S.C. AGRAWAL, J.-These appeals relating to grant of a long term lease in respect of immovable property vested in the Official Trustee as executor and trustee raise questions relating to the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 25 of the Official Trustees Act, 1913, herein referred to as the Act.
2. Under a will executed by one C. Kandaswamy Naidu on May 21, 1948, the testator made various bequests in favour of his children as well as other persons and bequeathed the rest of his properties to the Trustees of Pachaiyappas Charities subject to the conditions, payment and restrictions mentioned therein. The Official Trustee of Madras has been appointed as the executor and the trustee of the will and he has been empowered to sell and dispose of the properties, immovable as well as moveable. O.P. No. 278 of 1948 is the original proceeding instituted in the Madras High Court on the basis of the said will by the Official Trustee. Among the properties vested in the Official Trustee under the will is a vacant plot of land measuring about 5.65 grounds (13566.85 sq. ft.) situated at No. 21, Harrington Road, Madras. On the western side of the said plot of land, there is a building. The ground floor of the said building has been let out to Pachaiyappas Trust for the Office of the Trust. The first floor of the building is in occupation of another tenant.
3. On January 29, 1986, R.V.A. & Co., (Respondent 2), a partnership firm consisting of three unemployed medical graduates, filed an application (C.M.P. No. 495 of 1986) in O.P. No. 278 of 1948, wherein it was prayed that the Official Trustee be directed to enter into a lease agreement with the applicant firm for an initial period of 50 years with an option to the said applicant firm to renew the lease for a further period of 50 years on such terms and conditions which the court may deem fit to impose. In the affidavit of M.K. Rajasekar, one of the partners, filed in support of that application, it was stated that the partnership had been formed with the object of constructing and running a Nursing Home at Madras with a view to provide employment to the partners who were unemployed medical graduates. In the said affidavit, it was also stated that the applicants wish to take the plot of land on long lease with a view to construct a medium size hospital with about 30 rooms and they wanted the lease of the property initially for a minimum period of 50 years with an option to renew for a like period on the expiry of 50 years. In the said affidavit, it was also stated that after the expiry of the lease period the applicants would undertake to deliver the vacant possession of the premises with all the improvements made in the site leased out to them. As regards rent it was stated that Rs 4,500 per annum was a fair rent payable for the vacant land for the first year and that for every succeeding year the rent could be increased by 5 on the rent payable in respect of every preceding year.
4. The said application was opposed by the appellant. In the counter-affidavit filed on its behalf it was stated that the grant of lease for 50 years with an option to renew for a further period of 50 years was not in the interest of the Trust and not beneficial to it and it would be detrimental to the interests of the Trust to lease the property for a long period as it would amount to tying down the property in the hands of the applicants. It was also stated that the solvency of the applicants was not clear and that it would not be prudent to lease the trust property for a long period however laudable the objects of the partnership may be and it would be highly risky to lease out the property as sought for.
5. The Official Trustee also filed a report wherein he admitted the availability of the vacant space for lease and stated that he had no objection to the court directing a reasonably long term of lease for the vacant site but according to him the rent offered by Responde
relied on : K.N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India
State, of U.P. v. Shiv Charan Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.