SAINATH MANDIR TRUST versus VIJAYA & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 13-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 275 
SAINATH MANDIR TRUST 
v. 
VIJAYA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3030 of 2004) 
DECEMBER 13, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Trust and Charities: 
A 
B 
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - ss. 50, 51, 19, 20, 79 c 
and 80 - Disputes relating to property of trusts - Permission 
of Charity Commissioner to institute the suit - Original owner 
dedicating plot in favour of idol by virtue of gift deed - Trustee 
of temple taking possession of the property - After eight 
years, original owner executing sale deed for consideration 
0 
of Rs. 17, 5001- in respect of the same property, in favour of 
purchaser - Suit for possession of property and claim of Rs. 
17,5001- as damages by purchaser - Suit for possession 
dismissed, however, decreed to the extent of damages to be 
paid by original owner to purchaser, with future interest- Order 
passed by trial court set aside by first appellate court as also 
E 
High Court - On appeal, held: Purchaser of the property was 
not in possession of the property - They published notice 
inviting objections before purchasing property - Possession 
of-the property was delivered to the trust, thus, it is obligatory 
for the purchaser to seek permission from the Charity 
F 
Commissioner u/ss. 50 and 51 before instituting a civil suit -
Also it was incumbent upon the original owner to seek 
permission from Charity Commissioner before executing a 
sale deed - Gift being a dedication of idol, transfer in favour 
of trust was valid transfer and did not require registration -
G 
Thus, suit for possession barred in terms of ss. 19, 20, 79 and 
80 - Order of High Court is set aside and that of trial court is 
restored with modification to the extent that trust would pay the 
275 
H 
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A purchaser Rs. 17, 5001- without interest - Transfer of Property 
Act, 1882 - s. 123 - Registration - Deeds and documents. 
In the year 1974, respondent No. 8 dedicated certain 
property to the idol of Saibaba by way of a gift deed. The 
possession was handed over to the appellant-temple 
8 trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 
1950, for building a residential accommodation for 
devotees of the temple run by the appellant-temple trust. 
In the year 1982, the predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 
to 7 intended to purchase the said property and 
C published notice in the newspaper, inviting objections 
before the purchase of the property. Thereafter, they 
purchased the property from respondent No. 8 by a 
registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/-
and took possession of the property; and subsequently 
D sent a notice to the appellant-trust to vacate the property 
but the appellant-trust refused to vacate stating that they 
were the owners of the property. 
The predecessor of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 then filed 
E a suit for possession and claimed Rs. 17 ,500/- as 
damages against the appellant-temple trust. The trial 
court dismissed the suit as regards the recovery of the 
possession of the property. However, the suit was 
decreed to the extent of damages of Rs. 17 ,500/- to be 
paid to the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 by respondent No. 8 
F with future interest. The first appellate court set aside the 
order passed by the trial court. The High Court upheld 
the order passed by the first appellate court. Therefore, 
the appellant-temple trust filed the instant appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is evident from the record that it was the 
case of the plaintiff/respondent that they were not in 
possession of the plot in question. The finding recorded 
H by the trial court which was not interfered either by the 
SAINATH MANDIR TRUST v. VIJAYA & ORS. 
277 
first appellate court or the High Court was that the plaintiff/ 
A 
respondent was not in possession of the suit property 
in spite of the sale deed dated 14.10.1982 and the 
possession of the suit property was never delivered to 
the plaintiff or their legal heirs, respondent Nos. 1 to 7. It 
can logically be inferred that for this very reason the 
B 
plaintiff/respondent published a notice in a daily 
newspaper inviting objections before purchasing the 
property as in the normal circumstance, if a sale deed is 
executed by a private party holding title to the suit 
property in favour of another private party, the question c 
of publishing a notice in the newspaper does not arise · 
since the transaction of sale between two private parties 

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