TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trustees' joint action required in eviction proceedings, emphasizes involvement of all trustees.</h1> <h3>Jain Swetambara Murthi Pujaka Samastha and Ors. Versus Waman Dattatreya Pukale and Ors.</h3> Jain Swetambara Murthi Pujaka Samastha and Ors. Versus Waman Dattatreya Pukale and Ors. - AIR 1979 Kant 111 Issues:1. Validity of eviction proceedings initiated by one trustee without the involvement of other trustees.2. Interpretation of the Indian Trusts Act and the necessity of all trustees joining in legal proceedings.3. Applicability of principles regarding co-owners to cases of co-trustees.4. Permissibility of impleading other trustees in ongoing legal proceedings.Analysis:The judgment involves three Civil Revision petitions challenging the dismissal of applications filed by a public trust seeking eviction of tenants. The issue revolves around the validity of the eviction proceedings initiated by only one trustee, out of a body of 10 trustees, without the involvement of the other trustees. The Court below held that such initiation was defective ab initio and could not be cured by subsequent impleading of the other trustees.The petitioner contended that the defect was of a formal nature and could be rectified through subsequent impleading, citing legal precedents. On the other hand, the respondents argued that all trustees must join in legal proceedings as per the Indian Trusts Act, and the initiation by one trustee alone rendered the proceedings void.The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision and a Full Bench ruling of the Gujarat High Court, emphasizing the joint nature of trustees' duties and the requirement for all trustees to be involved in legal actions. However, it noted that the consequences of initiation by one trustee were not explicitly addressed in previous rulings.The Court highlighted a Supreme Court case regarding co-owners, indicating that impleading necessary parties could be permitted during the trial stage, even if the proceedings were initiated by one co-owner. This principle was deemed applicable to cases of co-trustees as well, supported by legal precedents cited by the petitioner.Ultimately, the Court held that the Court below erred in rejecting the applications for impleading and directed the involvement of other trustees in the eviction petitions. It emphasized the need for expeditious resolution of the cases and left the parties to bear their own costs.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the permissibility of impleading other trustees in ongoing legal proceedings initiated by one trustee, emphasizing the principles of joint responsibilities among trustees and the applicability of legal precedents regarding necessary party impleading.
TaxTMI 