NARANBHAI DAYABHAI PATEL AND ANR. versus SULEMAN ISUBJI DADABHAI

Citation: [1996] 1 S.C.R. 382 · Decided: 11-01-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARANBHAI DAYABHAI PATEL AND ANR. 
v. 
SULEMAN !SUBJ! DADABHAI 
JANUARY 11, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 : 
Section 32-Tenant becoming a deemed purchaser-Erstwhile land-
C 
holder creating a trust in which he was the trustee-beneficiary-No notice 
given to the deemed purchasei--Held : He is entitled to be heard b~fore 
granting registration to the trust. 
Letters Patent Act : 
D 
Clause 15--Statutory co1iferment of supervisory jurisdiction-Exercise 
E 
F 
G 
of-Appeal thereon-Letters Patent Appeal would not lie to Division Bench 
unless certificate for leave to appeal is granted by the Single Judge. 
Maneksha Ardeshir lrani & Anr. v. Manekji Edulji Mistry & Ors., [1975] 
2 SCR 341 and Ramachandra Goverdhan Pandit v. Charity Commissioner of 
State qf Gujarat, [1987] 2 SCR 1083, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3248 (N) of 
1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.79 of the Gujarat High Court 
in L.P.A. No. JO of 1976 in P.A. No. 347 of 1968. 
Sakesh Kumar for Mis. Hathi & Co., for the Appellants. 
Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Gujarat High Court in L.P.A. No. 10n6 dated July 27, 1979. 
The undisputed facts are that the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 
H 
1948 (for short, 'the Tenancy Act') was amended from time to time. The 
382 
,
N.D. PATEL v. S.I. DADABHAI 
383 
Amendment Act, 1956 had come into force on August 1, 1956. By operation 
A 
of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act, the tenant has become a deemed purchaser 
w.e.f. April 1, 1957 which is envisaged by the Act as the "Tillers' day". The 
erstwhile land-holder, the respondent on December 12, 1956 terminated the 
tenancy of the appellants and filed the Trust deed before the Assistant Charity 
Commi.ssioner under Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Born. 
B 
Act XXIX of 1950) (for short, 'the Act') for registration. On January 31, 
1957, the Trust was registered without any notice to the appellants. Against 
the said registration, the appellants carried the matter in appeal to the Charity 
Commissioner under Section 70 of the Act. But the Charity Commissioner by 
his order dated August 8, 1957 dismissed the appeal holding that "It is difficult 
to accept this argument". A trust is a mode of transfer known to law and if 
the legislature really wanted a transfer by way of a trust also to be prohibited, 
it could have so mentioned. A gift as defined in Section 122 of the Transfer 
of Property Act "cannot be said to include a trust". Against the said judgment, 
the appellants filed before the District Judge an appeal on October 4, l 957. 
c 
The Assistant Judge, Surat in Misc. Appln. No. 64 of 1957 by his order dated 
D 
August 18, 1967 held that "From the aforesaid comments, it will be seen that 
a distinction is made about the vesting declaration and it has not been 
mentioned therein that the vesting declaration would tantamount to a gift." 
Accordingly, it had confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The 
appellants further carried the matter in appeal. The learned single Judge in 
E 
First Appeal No. 347 of 1968 by Judgment and decree dated September 22, 
1975 set aside the order and held that the Mamlatdar in his proceedings under 
Section 32 had held that the appellants became the deemed purchasers by 
operation of Section 32. The respondent allowed that order to become final. 
Therefore, the land having been vested in the tenant by statutory operation of 
F 
Section 32, the creation of the trust and registration thereof under Section 18 
of the Act is not valid in law. Further a Letters Patent Appeal was carried and 
the Division Bench reversed the findings and held that there cannot be a 
transfer by a single person in his capacity as an individual and at the same time 
as a trustee beneficiary and that, therefore, it cannot be construed to be a gift 
under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act. The creation of the trust 
and registration thereof under Section 18 are valid in law. Thus this appeal by 
special leave has been filed. 
G 
Since the respondent, though served, had not appeared either through 
counsel or in person and since an important question of Jaw has arisen, we 
H 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] I S.C.R. 
A 
requested Sri Mukul Mudgal, the learned counsel to assist this

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.