PATTAHIRAMAN Vs. R R DINAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises in dispute originally belonged to Malli Subbiar Theena sanarakshana Salia, which is a trust. The question whether it is a private trust or a public trust is pending in a scheme suit under Section 92 of the Civil procedure Code. The premises in dispute was purchased by the appellants from the Trust. The premises was sold to the appellants after obtaining permission from the civil court. The managing trustee sought the permission of the court on the assumption that the Trust was a private trust. The fact remains that the appellants purchased the premises by way of two registered sale deeds, after the permission to sell was granted to the managing trustee by the court. The appellants filed eviction petitions against the respondent tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (18 of 1960) on the grounds of denial of title, demolition and reconstruction and default in payment of rent. The trial court allowed the petition and ordered the eviction of the tenant. The appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court. The High Court, however, reversed the finding on the question of denial of title and set aside the findings of the two courts below. The High court referred to the litigation which was initiated on behalf of various parties interested in the Trust. The scheme suit under Section 92 was pending wherein it was claimed that the Trust was not a private trust, but it was a public trust. It may be mentioned that the order of the civil court granting permission to sell the trust property was also challenged unsuccessfully. A revision arising out of the suit under Section 92 CPC was heard by the High court which was dismissed with the following observation:

(2.) The High Court relying on its observations in the, earlier case (quoted above) came to the conclusion that the trust was a public trust and as such the property owned by the trust would be exempt from the provisions of the Rent act. On that ground the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellants have no title in the property. We are of the view that the High court fell into patent error. The fact remains that the appellants purchased the property by way of two registered sale deeds. The permission of the court was sought by the trust before selling the property to the appellants. The trustees are still claiming that the Trust is a private trust. The trustees have refused to accept rent from the tenant on the ground that the property has already been sold to the appellants. In view of all these circumstances, the high Court was not justified in reaching a finding that the Trust is a public trust. The view of the High Court quoted above was only a prima facie view. It is for the court, before which the scheme suit under Section 92 is pending, to come to the conclusion whether the Trust is a public trust or a private trust. Till the time the sale deed in favour of the appellants are set aside or till the time a competent court comes to the conclusion that the Trust on the date of sale was a public trust and it had no power to sell the property, we are of the view that the appellants have title to the property. The High Court was not justified in reversing the findings of the two courts below.

(3.) We, therefore, allow the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore that of the trial court as upheld by the appellate court. No costs.