This application of the respondents was rejected by the Executing Court by its order of 3rd of May.
Since the second respondent did number handover possession of the properties of the said trust which companysisted o fthe said land bearing Survey No.
The Deputy Charity Commissioner by his order dated 17th of January 1975, framed and settled a scheme for the management of the said trust and appointed certain trustees.
98/84 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Yavatmal against the respondents praying for cessation of the said scheme and asking for possession of land bearing Survey No.
The second respondent, by this order was removed as a trustee and he was directed to handover possession of the trust property as well as management of the trust to the trustees appointed under the order of 24th of Oct., 1980.
However, the Court went on to hold that the issue of tenancy arises and should be referred to the Tehsildar under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Vidharbha Region Act, 1958.
An appeal was filed by respondents from the order of 3.5.85 and 2.7.85.
DER The appellants 1 to 3 are the trustees of Appellant No.4 which is a public turst registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
The scheme was thereafter amended by the Charity Commissioner by his order dated 24th of Oct. 1980 in suo motu proceedings.
Therefore, the trustees should ask for execution of the scheme as a decree.
14 and also did number handover managment of the said trust, the trustees moved the Charity Commissioner.
14 from the respondents.
Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed a Civil Revision Application before the High Court.
The present proceedings arise from an order in Revision passed by the high Court in Execution Proceedings.
In the application filed jointly on behalf of both the respondents the following statement was made in Paragraph 2, That the applicants did number obtain any decree of Competent Court against the number applicants are the present appellants 1 to Again in paragraph 4 of this application it is stated inter alia, moreover the number applicant No.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has upheld the submission that the scheme companyld be validly executed as a decree.
Thereafter, the decree was executed and on 15.6.85 the trust has taken possession of the said land.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging that portion of the order of the High Court which directs the framing of an issue relating to tenancy of the 1st respondent and directing handing over of possession of the trust property to the 1st respondent.
The 1st respondent filed a Review Application before the Executing Court which was rejected by the Executing Court by its orders of 2nd July, 1985.
It was dismissed by the District Judge by his order of 6.8.85.
Accordingly, the present trustees i.e.appellents 1 to 3 who were the trustees at the material time filed a Regular Execution Application No.
The second respondent, who had throughout acted as a trustee of the said trust was also appointed as one of the trustees under the said order.
The second respondent is a former trustee of the said trust while the first respondent claims to be a tenant of the lands belonging to the said trust.
He ordered substitution of certain new trustees by removing earlier trustees.
