Back
2010 (8) Supreme 558
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Sainath Mandir Trust — Appellant
versus
Vijaya & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3030 of 2004
Decided on : 13-12-2010
(b) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Sections 19, 20, 79 and 80 – Dedication of the plot for charitable purpose in the nature of gift already acted upon and possession also delivered – Civil suit for possession of such property is expressly barred. (Para 13)
(c) Transfer of Property Act – Section 123 and section 1, Indian Trusts Act – does not apply to gift to deity and a religious trust – No document was necessary for the dedication of property to charity. (Para 14)
AIR 1927 Mad. 636; 13 M.L.J. 364 – Cited with approval
AIR 1936 Cal. 556; AIR 1944 Nag. 33 – Referred
(d) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Sections 50 and 51 – Assistant Charity Commissioner possesses all the attributes of a Court – It has almost all the powers of an ordinary civil court. (Para 18)
(2003) 3 SCC 563 – Relied upon
(e) Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Sections 79(1) and 80 – When the appellant-trust was in occupation and possession of the property, the respondent-plaintiff could not have approached the civil court – Further, sale deed executed ten years after the gift – The owner could have approached civil court – Purchaser could not do so without approaching the Charity Commissioner. (Para 19)
Facts of the case:
1. The Trust claims that the suit property was gifted to it by the original owner and possession was also delivered.
2. On the other hand, the respondent nos. 1 to 7 claim that the suit property was purchased by their predecessor and they ere in possession of the same.
3. A regular suit for possession and damages was filed by plaintiff/respondent (presently represented by respondent nos. 1 to 7).
4. The suit was dismissed so far re-possession is concerned but the trial court allowed the damages. The appeal thereagainst was allowed by the first appellate court.
5. The second appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Civil suit was barred.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Gyan Sudha Misra, J. —
This appeal by special leave has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 27.03.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur, in Second Appeal No. 246 of 1990 whereby the appeal was dismissed on merit. Consequently, the judgment of reversal passed by the Additional District Judge, Amaravati allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court which had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, was upheld.
2. The origin of this appeal at the instance of the defendant/appellant herein emanates from a Regular Civil Suit No. 166 of 1983 which had been filed by the deceased plaintiff-Shri Vitthal Motiramji Mandale who is now represented by his legal heirs Respondent Nos. 1-7, for possession and damages valued at Rs. 17,500/- in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Amaravati, against the appellant - Sainath Mandir Trust which is a registered public trust within the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950. The suit land comprises of a plot bearing No. 57, arising out of original fields bearing Survey No. 33, situated at Saturana in the outskirts of Amravati Township. As per the case of the defendant/appellant herein, which admittedly is a public trust, the suit property was dedicated to the idol of Saibaba by the respondent No. 8 /original defendant No.2 by way of a gift deed executed way back on 31.1.1974 which according to the appellant’s version, was immediately acted upon as possession was also handed over to the appellant-trust which is in occupation of the suit property till date. It is the specific case of the defendant/appellant that the suit plot was donated by way of a gift deed executed by the original defendant No.2 /respondent No. 8 herein Shri Vasant Mahadeo Fartode on 31.1.1974 essentially for building a residential accommodation for devotees of the Saibaba Mandir run by the appellant-trust. Thus, by virtue of the gift deed, the admitted owner respondent No. 8 / original defendant No. 2 Shri Vasant Mahadeo Fartode was divested of the title over the suit property after he executed the gift deed and also delivered possession of the plot to the appellant-trust. Hence, as per the case of the appellant Sainath Mandir Trust, the gift deed dated 31.1.1974 was duly acted upon since the appellant immediately came in possession of the suit property and continues to remain in possession of the same till date ever since 1974.
3. As against the aforesaid case of the appellant, the predecessor of the contesting respondent Nos. 1-7, late Shri Vitthal Motiramji Mandale who is now legally represented by the respondent Nos. 1-7, intended to purchase the suit property and therefore issued a notice in daily “Matrbhumi” dated 2.10.1982 thereby inviting objections in respect of the said plot. Further, case of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 is that no objections were received in response to the notice as a result of which the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 i.e. late Shri Vitthal Motiramji Mandale purchased the plot from the respondent No. 8-Shri Vasant Mahadeo Fartode by a registered sale deed dated 14.10.1982 for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. As per the plaintiff/respondent’s case, they also claimed to have immediately taken possession of the said property after execution of the sale deed and it is further averred that when the contesting respondents wanted to put fence around the said plot, then on 4.12.1982 they noticed a board on the disputed plot which was put up by the appellant-trust on which it was mentioned that the respondent No. 8/defendant No.2 had given the said plot to the appellant-trust for construction of a residential accommodation for the devotees of Saibaba Mandir. In view of this notice, the respondents sent a notice on 7.12.1982 to the appellant-trust to remove the board and further do not obstruct to the fencing of the suit plot which was responded by the appellant-trust stating that they are in possession o
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
