RAVI CONSTRUCTIONS CO. versus SOMVANSHI ARYA KSHATRIYA SAMAJ AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 48 · Decided: 13-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RA VI CONSTRUCTIONS CO. 
\( 
SOMVANSHI ARYA KSHATRIYA SAMAJ AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 13. 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Trusts and Charities: 
Suit filed by Respondent-Trust challenging consent decree passed in an 
C earlier suit filed by its Chief Trustee on ground that he could not have filed 
it without joining other trustees as plaintiffs and that he had no authority 
to enter into the compromise which culminated in the consent decree-
Mainlainability of-Held, not maintainable as earlier suit was compromised 
by the Chief Trustee in terms of resolution adopted by all trustees which 
D showed that the earlier suit had been filed with knowledge and consent of 
all the trustees and on behalf of all the trustees-- ~ode of Ciril Procedure, 
1908-0rder XXll!, Rule JA. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section /00-Second appeal allowed 
without framing question of law-Propriety of-Held, improper--// is c/ear~y 
E contrary to the mandate of S. I 00. 
Respondent No. I-Trust filed suit challenging consent decree passed in 
earlier suit filed by its Chief Trustee, Respondent No.2, on ground that he 
could not have filed the same without joining other trustees as plaintiffs and 
that he had no authority to enter into the compromise which culminated in 
F the consent decree. Trial Court dismissed the suit. First Appellate Court 
upheld the order. High Court however allowed the second appeal without 
framing any substantial question of law. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: I. The second appeal was allowed without framing a question of 
H 
law which is clearly contrary to the mandate of Section 100, CPC.152-AJ 
Gian Dass v. Panchayar, Village Sunner Kalan & Ors., JT (2006) 7 SC 
102; Joseph Severane and Ors. v. Benny Mathew and Ors., JT (2005) 8 SC 
48 
.. 
RA VI CONSTRUCTIONS CO. 1·. SOMVANSHI ARYA KSHATRIYA SAMAJ [PASAYA T,J.] 49 
509; Sasikumar and Ors. v. Kunnath Chellappan Nair and Q1:i, JT (2005) 9 A 
SC 171; Chadat Singh v. Bahadur Ram and Ors., JT (2004) 6 SC 296; 
Kanhaiyala/ v. Anupkumar, JT (2002) 10 SC 98; Roop Singh v. Ram Singh, 
JT (2000) 3 SC 474 and /shwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, JT (1999) 9 SC 613, 
• 
. relied on . 
2. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court categorically B 
observed that the resolution adopted by all the trustees including the chief 
trustee and the advocate for the trust who was himself a trustee clearly 
established that the earlier suit was filed with the knowledge and consent of 
all the trustees and on behalf of all the trustees. Significantly the trust deed 
was not produced. It could have shown, as rightly contended by the appellant, c 
that the trust could be sued or can sue in the name of chief trustee. In any 
event the categorical factual finding recorded that the suit was filed with the 
knowledge and consent of all the trustees has not been disturbed and in fact 
no reference has been made in the impugned judgment to this aspect. If the 
trustees had no knowledge of the suit they could not have adopted a resolution 
for compromise in a particular mode indicating three alternatives. They D 
specifically authorized the chief trustee and the advocate who was also a 
trustee to enter into a compromise. In that view of the matter the High Court 
was not justified in holding that the suit was maintainable. (52-C-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 729 of2004. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7 .2000 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay in Second Appeal No. 289 of 1994. 
Nikhil Sakhardande and V.D. Khanna for the Appellant. 
Sushil Karanjakar and Venkateswara Rao Anumolu for the Respondents. F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment 
rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Second 
Appeal filed by the respondents. 
G 
-1( 
Background facts, as projected by appellant in a nutshell are as follows: 
. 
An agreement was entered into between Viraj Construction-respondent 
No.9 in this appeal and respondent No. I Somavanshi Arya Kshatriya Samaj 
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Trust") on 7.7.1985 on for construction of a H 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A multi-purpose Community hall free of charges. Trust agreed simultaneously 
to surrender certain portions of the Trust land to respondent No.9 for 
development. On 3. 7.1987, an agreement was entered into between appellant 
and respond
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.