9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a pity that despite the case of the appellant-defendant having received support from the Privy Council, he came to lose on the same point, to start with, at the hand of Civil Judge. The High Court, which ultimately upheld the view of the Civil Judge, should not have allowed this piquant situation to prevail. 2. The broad facts of the case at hand consist in filing of the present suit by respondent No. 1 in 1954, seeking possession of the suit property, as validly appointed Padadayya (Mathadhipati) of the math at Jamkhandi. The plaintiff claimed this property on the assertion that he had been duly installed as Padadayya on 30.1.1994, as a successor to Virupakshayya 1, who had died as early as 1903. According to him, defendant Nos. 1 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Wad's effort was to convince us that the suit is not hit by Sections 50 and 51 of the Act, 4. Let it be seen whether this contention can be accepted. Section 50 of the Act deals with suits relating with public trusts. The relevant part of this section reads as under : In any case- (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) where a declaration is necessary that that a particular property is a property belonging to a public trust or where a direction is required to recover the pos- session of such property or the property or proceeds thereof from any person including a person holding adversely to the public trust. (iii) xxx xxx xxx The Charity Commissioner or two or more persons having obtained the consent in writing of the Charity Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the definition of this expression in Section 2(10) of the Act. This Court, however, did not endorse the view of the Full Bench by observing that the definition in Section 2(10) was an inclusive one and there was no lawful justification to exclude trustees from the same. As in that case the suit was filed to recover possession from a person holding adversely to the trust, about which also mention has been made in clause (ii) of Section 50, it does not follow that clause (ii) vasualises suit for recovery of possession only from a person holding adversely to the public trust, as it has clearly stated about recovery of possession from any person . According to us, this would include a person who may not claim adversely to the public trust, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case of Andanayya was the infrimity in the nomination and the installation of Shivalingayya as Padadayya; and it is precisely this which the Privy Council had not accepted. 10. In the aforesaid premises, the judgment of the Privy Council, even though the same did not bind the plaintiff on the principle of res judicata, was definitely a relevant circumstance to be taken note of, because of what has been stated in Section 42 of the Evidence Act. What we, however, find is that the High Court had only referred to the earlier decision without examining the question as to whether law permitted a contrary view to be taken on the self same issue. According to us, the issue having been finally determined at the highest level, the same could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
