ARYA SATYADEV DHANJIBHAI Vs. BHAILALBHAI ISHWARBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiffs Trustees of Charotar Pradesh Arya Samaj Trust against the respondent defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Nadiad in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1963. By that judgment and decree the judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 321 of 1961 of the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Anand were reversed.

(2.) The aforesaid trust is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 The said trust owned survey No. 1032/1 admeasuring 1 acre and 39 gunthas and survey No. 1035 admeasuring 4 acres and 18 gunthas situate in village Vadod Taluka Anand. Two contiguous portions of these survey numbers admeasuring 1 acre and 17 gunthas and 2 acres and 4 gunthas respectively were leased by the said trust to the respondent defendant. The said trust obtained an Exemption Certificate under sec. 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (which will be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Certificate is granted by the Collector under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 88B of the Act. The said trust requires the said land for the purposes of constructing a Gaushala one of the objects of the trust. The said trust gave notice Ex. 35 for determining the tenancy. Notice is dated 29th December 1960 The tenant was called upon to hand over possession of the leased lands on the expiry of the date 31st March 1961 The respondent did not comply with that notice and did not hand over possession and consequently the appellants filed Regular Civil Suit No. 321 of 1961 in the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division Anand for recovery of possession and mesne profits.

(3.) The respondent defendant by his written statement Ex. 10 raised several contentions. One of the main contentions with which we are concerned in this second appeal was that in view of the provisions of sec. 4B of the Act the appellants were not entitled to get possession of the suit lands from him. The legality of the notice was also challenged. It was also contended in the trial Court that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a suit.