1, directing the Defendant No.
In the year 1955, the original defendant No.
On the one hand, the defendant No.
Admittedly, in terms of the said agreement, permission from the Charity Commissioner in terms of Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act was required to be taken.
The fact that as far back as in 1951, the plaintiff purchased the superstructure standing on the land is number in dispute.
Therefore, you are hereby informed that my client intends to companyduct the public auction as per the order of the Charity Commissioner within a few days.
Whether the plaintiff proves that she was ever ready and willing to perform her part of the companytract?
An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Ist Addl.
It was furthermore companytended that the suit was barred by limitation.
2 on 12.5.1988?
1 executed an agreement of sale on 26th February, 1980?
In any event, the said purported numberice being passed on the order of the Charity Commissioner dated 30.10.1982 which having been set aside, limitation would run only from the date when the Charity Commissioner passed its order dated 15.04.1987 and number prior thereto.
1 by way of companysideration for the execution of the deed of sale dated 12.05.1988.
It was the only sensible way of doing justice to the parties.
1, purported to be in pursuance thereof and in furtherance of the said order, by a numberice dated 22.04.1983, stated As stated above, the Charity Commissioner has granted permission subject to certain companyditions.
1 companyld perform her part of companytract, the suit was held to be number barred by the law of limitation.
In case you are unable to purchase the said properties in the public auction, my client is willing to refund the balance of the earnest money paid by you after deducting appropriate amount as mesne profits you your sic occupation till number.
75,000/ .
You are entitled to receive such amount.
Once the said order of the Charity Commissioner was set aside, steps taken pursuant thereto also became number est in the eye of law as the Charity Commissioner was to apply his mind afresh for enabling him to exercise his jurisdiction in terms of Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act.
Appellant in the said suit number only denied and disputed the right of the respondent No.
Plaintiff got herself impleaded as a defendant therein.
The learned Trial Judge in view of the rival pleadings of the parties inter alia framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.
On or about 30.10.1982, an order was passed by the Charity Commissioner directing that the land should be sold in public auction and the highest bidder should be permitted to purchase the suit land.
8 herein is a charitable trust.
75,000/ in 1988 and since then he has been in possession of a part of the property as a vendee in terms of the said registered deed of sale dated 12.05.1988.
A deed of sale was executed in his favour by the defendant No.
Defendant number 1 had filed a suit against the alleged trespassers.
11 of 1955, agreements for sale were entered into.
Defendant No.
2 to sell the suit properties.
Distt.
Originally, the plaintiff was number impleaded as a party therein.
The relevant term of the said agreement reads as under The said Rayanal math, being a public math, the necessary permission required to sell the said math properties shall be obtained from the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum and the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, and after intimating you about the same and receiving the balance companysideration amount within one month thereafter, sale deed shall be executed in the presence of the sub registrar.
There was numberoccasion for him to put the appellant in independent possession of the property, as he himself was number in possession thereof, at least since 1951.
If you intend to purchase the said property you may participate in the public auction.
1 on or about 12.05.1988.
Indisputably, the said order of the Charity Commissioner was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted directing it to pass a fresh order.
358 of 1988 filed in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Hubli is the appellant, herein.
After his fathers death, the appellant requested for some more time to vacate.
The Charity Commissioner in his order dated 15.04.1987 numbericed that the appellant herein had been in possession of the suit property.
He even had number refunded the earnest money paid by the plaintiff respondent No.
By a registered deed dated 5.07.1951, the plaintiff respondent No.
1 purchased the lease hold rights in respect of the land together with the superstructure standing thereupon from Shri Hasansab Bepari.
She was arrayed as the defendant No.
1 to obtain a decree for specific performance of companytract but put forth a plea that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without numberice.
Only because the land on which the superstructure stood belonged to the trust, the agreement of sale was entered into.
Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.8000/ was paid by way of earnest money.
1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.
Plaintiff Respondent No.
1 thereafter filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement dated 26.02.1980 and furthermore questioned the validity of the said deed of sale dated 12.05.1988 in the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Hubli, praying inter alia for the following reliefs It is, therefore, humbly prayed that, the sale in favour of Defendant No.
1 did number obtain the permission of the Charity Commissioner in which event only the plaintiff respondent No.
1 filed a suit against several persons.
1 selected defendant No.
2 in the Original Suit No.
1 Respondent No.
1, having regard to the fact that the plaintiff had already purchased the superstructure, agreed to sell the land to her by an agreement dated 26.02.1980 for a companysideration of Rs.25,000/ .
This numberice dated 22.4.1983 is for your information.
1 and managed to get the suit property transferred in his name.
Defendant No.
Inter alia on a wrong premise that the appellant herein was in possession of the said property, the deed of sale was executed on 12.05.1988 for the sum of Rs.
You will be entitled to adjust the earnest money paid by you against the bid amount.
Appellant, however, companynived with the defendant No.
Whether the plaintiff proves that when the agreement of sale in her favour was in force, defendant No.
1 obtained a higher amount.
Judge, Dharwad and by a judgment and order dated 22.12.2001, the learned Appellate Court categorically held It is important to numbere that the plaintiff had purchased number only the leasehold right of the land in question and also the superstructure under Ex.
1 is an old lady and her interest is required to be upheld, on the other, the appellant has also invested a sum of Rs.
She got herself impleaded as a party at a later stage of the suit.
Defendant No.
Plaintiff evidently was number found to be a trespasser.
Evidently, the defendant No.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
