NARANBHAI DAHYABHAI PATEL Vs. SULEMAN ISAPJI DADABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal arises out of the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner Baroda Region under sec. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950 registering the public trust known as Dadabhai Trust and holding that agricultural lands bearing S. Nos. 432 433 434 and 461 of the village Kholwad taluka Kamrej of Surat district are the lands belonging to the said trust. The appellants claim to be the tenants over the lands in question and they have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the decision given by the Assistant Judge at Surat under sec. 72 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act in Misc. Application No. 64 The appellants have in this appeal challenged the findings that the lands mentioned above are the lands belonging to the above referred trust.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that it is an undisputed fact that before the above referred trust was created on 31st December 1956 one Dayabhai Nathubhai was cultivating these lands as a tenant. It is not in dispute that the name of the said Dayabhai Nathubhai was entered as protected tenant under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1933 & 1948. The Act of 1948 was subsequently amended by the Bombay Act No. 13 of 1956 and the amendments contemplated by the said Act No. 13 of 1956 came into force on 1-8-56. One of the consequences of this amendment was that the tenant Dayabhai Nathubhai was to be the deemed purchaser of the lands in question according to law on 1-4-57.

(3.) However before the said Dayabhai Nathubhai could become the deemed purchaser of the lands under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 as amended by the Act No. 13 of 1956 the present respondent No 1 Suleman Isapji Dadabhai had given him a notice dt. 12th December 1956 terminating his tenancy. When this notice was given the amendment Act No. 13 of 1956 had already come into force. A few days after the above referred notice respondent No. 1 created a public charitable trust with regard to the disputed agricultural lands. The object of the trust was to run a dispensary as well as to give scholarships to Muslim students. He drew a regular deed creating the said trust. By virtue of this deed the suit lands vested in the trustees appointed under the trust. The trustees were directed to utilise the trust properties for the above referred two objects. One of the clauses of the trust provided that the respondent No. 1 should act as a sole trustee till his life time with a power to appoint other co-trustees from the members of his own family. After his death his sons and other members of his family were to act as trustees. It is an admitted fact that this trust deed was also registered under the provisions of the Registration Act.