Case title:
Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas vs Ratilal Motilal Patel
Date of Order:
5 September, 1967
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.C. Shah
Parties:
Petitioner: Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur
Respondent: Ratilal Motilal Patel
SUBJECT
This petition is filed by the petitioner to challenge the judgement of overturning the district court’s decision by the High Court by concluding that, the sale of the mortgaged property without the Charity Commissioner's approval was illegal under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The Supreme Court later allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and set aside the High Court’s
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Order 21 Rule 89
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 165
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
- Section 36
- Section 56 (B)
BRIEF FACTS
- In this case, a mortgage decree was used as justification for selling public trust property. The sale was challenged by the trust's trustees in accordance with Order 21, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The mortgagee allegedly agreed to give them time to pay the mortgage amount and abandoned the application for execution after they deposited 5% of the purchase price as payment to the auction buyer. The District Court overturned the subordinate judge's decision to annul the sale, finding that the trustees had broken Rule 89.
- The High Court set aside the order on the ground that the sale of the mortgaged property without the sanction of the Charity Commissioner was prohibited by the Bombay Public Trusts Act.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the orders of overturning the judgement of District Court passed by the High Court is valid or not?
- Whether the sale of the mortgaged property without the Charity Commissioner's approval was illegal under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 or not?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Supreme Court ruled that a court sale carried out in accordance with a decree is not included in the definition of "sale" as used in Section 36(a) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, which addresses the sale, mortgage, exchange, or gift of immovable property owned by a public trust. The court further determined that a lawsuit or process to enforce a mortgage decree against real property held in trust for the public is not a lawsuit or proceeding affecting a public charity or religious purpose as defined by Section 56B of the Act.
- Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that merely depositing 5% of the purchase money and persuading the decree-holder to abandon the execution proceeding does not fulfill the conditions of Order 21, Rule 89. The rule requires the deposit of the specified amount in the proclamation of sale for payment to the decree-holder. Therefore, the Apex Court Allowed the petition and set asides the orders passed by the High Court.
CONCLUSION
In the Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel case from 1967, a public trust sold property that was subject to a debt. The courts rejected the trustees' request to halt the transaction. The Bombay Public Trusts Act does not apply to sales made to satisfy mortgage judgements, the Supreme Court concluded, and notice to the Charity Commissioner is not required. The court determined that the Code of Civil Procedure standards had to be completed in order to cancel the sale and that depositing 5% of the purchase price was insufficient. The Supreme Court overturned the judgement of the High Court and upheld the judgement of the District Court
