Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)Section 47 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950
Karam Singh Sobti & Anr vs Shri Pratap Chand & Anr on 29 August, 1963
It is open to him to carry such order in appeal or revision and urge before the Appellate Authority or the revisional authority that the order was illegal, invalid, incorrect or wrong and deserved to be set aside. All permissible grounds are available to such person who was party in the proceedings and against whom an order has been passed to challenge such order. The independent right of sub-tenant is not taken away in challenging the order of eviction or dispossession if he was party in the proceeding as sub-tenant which culminated in passing of the order of eviction or dispossession even if the tenant-in-chief has not chosen to challenge such order of eviction. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of the Apex Court in Karam Singh Sobti and another v. Sri Pratap Chand and another, , where the Supreme Court has held that in a suit for ejectment of tenant on the ground of sub-letting where the tenant and sub-tenant both have been made defendant a decree of ejectment is passed against both, it can be challenged in appeal by sub-tenant in his own rights even though the tenant decides not to file appeal. The Supreme Court, thus, held :---
Nanalal Girdharlal And Anr. vs Gulamnabi Jamalbhai Motorwala And Ors. on 2 March, 1972
13. The answer to the question whether one of the several co-trustees of the Trust can effectively determine the tenancy by giving notice to quit and whether an application for possession under section 19(1)(d) of the Tenancy Act could be filed by one of the trustees of Sarda Education Trust without joining other co-trustees would depend on the resolution dated 25-12-1984 and whether such resolution was covered under any of the exceptions under section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act or not. Similar questions came up for determination before the Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in Nanalal's case (cited supra) and the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court held, thus:---
1