The appellants gave out that in case the property was number said to them at the price offered by them on or before July 10, 1990 they would number only taken action to set aside the said but lodge companyplaints with the registration and income tax departments and also move the High Court for taking action against the Trust for filing false affidavit.
Thereafter on July 3, 1990 the appellants sent a numberice, through their Advocate, to the Trust, the trustees and the purchasers alleging that they had played a fraud on the Court, the Registration Department and the income tax Department when they declared that the property fetched a highest offer of Rs.
By a resolution dated December 7, 1989 the trustees accepted the offer of the purchasers and entered into a formal agreement for sale with them on December 15, 1989, after receiving a sum of Rs.
In their separate replies thereto, the respondent denied the allegations made by the appellant and the purchasers stated in their reply, inter alia, as follows Our client made enquiries with the trustees with regard to your statement that your client had offered to buy the property for Rs.14,20,000/ by his latter dated 23rd January 1990.
It further held that the purchasers had bona fide purchased the property for value without numberice of the offer of the appellants dated January 23, 1990.
In setting aside the order the Bench held that the finding or the learned Judge that the permission to sold the property was obtained by fraud was patently wrong and the the offer of the appellants was number a bona fide one.
By its order dated November 23, 1983 the High Court granted such power subject to the companydition that it would be exercised only with the permission of the Court and the companycurrence of 3/4th on the total number of trustees in office.
Armed with the above order the trustees invited offers for purchase of the property and on receipt of some offers sought permission of the High Court to sell the same at the highest price offered which was granted on February 9, 1984.
Pursuant to the said order said deeds were executed in favour of the purchasers on April 12, 1990 and all the tenants of the property , including the appellants, were intimated of such sale.
Then on January 15, 1990, the trustees applied for the clearance certificate required under the Income Tax Act for sale of the property.
Aggrieved by the above order the trust and the purchasers preferred two separate appeals before the Division Bench Bench for short which were allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside.
By an order dated March 29, 1990 a learned Judge of the High Court granted the permission sought for and directed the trustees to invest the sale proceeds, in such manner as the Majority of them might deem fit and proper.,
As the trustees were finding in difficult to carry out the purposes or the trust for paucity or funds they moved the High Court in 1979 for modification of the terms of the trust deed so as to empower them to sell the above properties.
He categorically denied that there was any fraud or companylusion with the purchasers and asserted that the trustees had acted bona fide.
In acknowledging the above letter the trustees intimated the appellants, by letter dated February 26, 1990, that their offer to purchase the property for Rs.
However, inspite of the permission so granted, the trustees did number sell the property at the highest price offered, which was Rs.
162 at Mint Street, Madras thereinafter referred to as the property for the benefit or his poor relations and for other charitable and pious purpose.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 11, 1995 rendered by the Madras High Court disposing of two Original Side appeals.
10 to 15 hereinafter referred to as the purchasers who are brothers and members or a joint family, for Rs.
By a dead of declaration dated January 15, 1934 one Ambasnker Joshi created the respondent No.
Thereafter on March 16, 1990 the Trust through the managing trustee, filed an application in the High Court Application No.
1 Trust in relation to his three immovable properties, one of which is house and ground No.
I state that the Applicants were aware of the offer of Seshmal Jain and five others and the agreement entered into with them.
1660 of 1990 seeking permission to sell the property to the purchasers for Rs.
With the above findings and, in view or an affidavit filed by the purchasers before it expressing their willingness to pay Rs.
14,20,000/ , would be placed before the meeting of the trustees and the decision taken would be companymunicated to them and accordingly, asked them to wait for the result of the meeting.
9,00,000/ as, according to them, it was the highest offer, and to execute and register the necessary deed of sale.
It was further alleged that the purchasers were aware of their offer as they were informed of the same through one of them respondent No.
3,15,000/ till then, and instead thereof invited, and received, fresh offers including one from the respondent Nos.
9,00,000/ as its price, in that, they suppressed the fact that they the appellants had offered to purchased the property for Rs.
Special leave granted.
429 new No.
Heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
1,50,000/ an earnest money.
Facts leading to this appeal and relevant for its disposal are as under.
9,00,000/ .
14,20,000/ .
