Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 34 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Official Trustee, West Bengal & Ors vs Sachindra Nath Chatterjee & Anr on 13 December, 1968
Further, the OP was filed in the District Court by the respondents without
impleading the Commissioner, HR & CE at the stage of confirma-tion of sale,
the Deputy Commissioner, HR & CE had intervened. Again in the CRP there was
initially a finding by the learned Judge that there was dedication not
merely of the income but of the property. It was also held that in view of
a judgment of the Supreme Court in Official Trustee W.B. v. Sachindra, AIR
(1969) SC 823, it was not permissible for the Court to give sanction for
sale if under the trust deed, such a sale was prohibited. When the Review
petition was heard, the Commissioner HR & CE was a party before the High
Court and he filed objections claiming that property was a specific
endowment and permission of the Commissioner under Section 34 of the
Endowment Act, 1959 was necessary and permission of the District Court
under the Trust Act was not sufficient. Further, in the Civil Appeal 1930
of 1990 it was agreed by the HR & CE Commissioner, the auction purchasers
and the trustees and interested persons that the matter shall be decided
"on merits by the High Court and in accordance with law". After the Memo
for withdrawal was filed, the Commissioner contended, in addition, that he
having dropped proceedings against the trustees as directed by the Supreme
Court, he was entitled to an adjudica-tion on merits.
The Indian Trusts Act, 1882
Section 23 in Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Kedar Nath And Ors. vs Chandra Kiran And Ors. on 30 August, 1961
It is true that in a large number of cases decided by the High Courts, it
was held while dealing with applications under Order 23, Rule 1, CPC, that
if an appeal was preferred by an unsuccessful plaintiff against the
judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit and if the plaintiff
appellant wanted to withdraw not only the appeal but also the suit
unconditionally, then such a permission so far as the withdrawl of the suit
was concerned, can be granted if there was no question of any adjudication
on merits in favour of the defendants by the trial being nullified by such
withdrawal. On the other hand, if any such findings by the trial court in
favour of the defendant would set nullified, such permission for withdrawal
of the suit should not be granted. (See Thakur Singh v. A. Achuta Rao,
(1977) 2 APLJ 111; Kedar Nath v. Chandra Karan, AIR (1962) All.
Jubedan Begum And Ors. vs Sekhawat Ali Khan on 6 March, 1984
41; Charles Samuel v. Board of Trustees,
[1978] 1 MLJ 243; Lala Chetram v. Krishnamoni, [1984] 1 MLJ 28; Jubedan
Begum v. Sekhawat Ali Khan, AIR 1984) P. & H 221; Ram Dhan v. Jagat Prasad,
AIR (1982) Raj. p. 235. In the present case, the learned Judge felt that no
such finding in favour of the Commissioner was being nullified by the
withdrawal of the OP at the stage of revision and therefore the withdrawl
of OP was permissible.
Ram Dhan vs Jagat Prasad Sethi And Ors. on 30 April, 1982
41; Charles Samuel v. Board of Trustees,
[1978] 1 MLJ 243; Lala Chetram v. Krishnamoni, [1984] 1 MLJ 28; Jubedan
Begum v. Sekhawat Ali Khan, AIR 1984) P. & H 221; Ram Dhan v. Jagat Prasad,
AIR (1982) Raj. p. 235. In the present case, the learned Judge felt that no
such finding in favour of the Commissioner was being nullified by the
withdrawal of the OP at the stage of revision and therefore the withdrawl
of OP was permissible.