(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 10—Government Land Allotment—Validity of Conditions—Property Law—Government Land Alienation—Statutory Schemes—Alienation of land by the Government under statutory schemes constitutes an allotment and not a sale in the conventional sense—The Court held that conditions imposed under such schemes, aimed at ensuring public welfare and proper land utilization, are valid and do not violate Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 10, which restricts absolute restraints on alienation, does not apply to allotments made for public purposes—Public interest is paramount and supersedes individual proprietary rights, thereby legitimizing reasonable restrictions imposed on the use or transfer of allotted land under such government schem...

RESTORATION OF REVIEW APPLICATION—Restoration of Review application—Appellants operate a hospital trust and faced a legal dispute with a former employee over property ownership—The case went through various appeals, with the Supreme Court dismissing a review application—Subsequently, the respondents repeatedly filed applications for restoration, all of which were dismissed for non-prosecution—The High Court, without reason, allowed one such restoration application—The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, emphasizing the misuse of legal processes and lack of diligence by the respondents—Respondents must pay a specified cost.  ...

Civil suit—Temple & Its Affairs Can Only Be Administered By Trustee— Kerala High Court Affirms Devaswom Board's Authority In Temple Land Dispute—Writ Petition—Filed by various parties—Sought quashing of certain orders removal of encroachments from properties belonging to the Kootholikavu Sree Bhagavathy Temple—Dispute centered around application of Kerala Land Conservancy Act and the Devaswom Board's authority—Court quashed some orders and directed 9th respondent to reconsider a specific property under Act—While instructing the Devaswom Board to take action regarding other properties. ...

Trust Property—Probate case involving conflicting wills—The testator, Nandlal Das, executed a will in 1963, and his widow, Shyama Sundari Dassi, executed a will in 1973—The dispute centers on the validity of Shyama Sundari Dassi's will—The Division Bench of the High Court ruled in favor of the will's validity—The Supreme Court, citing limited jurisdiction in Probate proceedings, upheld the Division Bench's decision, emphasizing that Probate courts do not determine property title disputes—The appeal was dismissed. ...

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950—Section 36—Property Law—Sale of trust property—Confirming the Joint Charity Commissioner's permission to sell the Trust's properties—The Trust claimed that the Commissioner did not act in accordance with the law and failed to consider the Trust's interest—The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner's permission was granted improperly, without assessing property values, and in violation of the law—The Court annulled the sale transactions, ordered the Trust to protect its properties in the future, and directed the restoration of possession to the rightful owners within two months. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1909, Section 92 and 115 – Trust property - Permission to institute suit - Plaint was not annexed with the application filed under Section 92 of the CPC which is pre-requisite for filing the application for leave to file a suit - Based on the averments in the plaint only, it can be inferred that whether an application under Section 92 is maintainable or not –Held that learned Single Judge erred while granting leave to the appellants - It was the statutory duty of the Court to examine that whether the plaint is so annexed with the application under Section 92 CPC or not - High Court has also erred in neglecting this fact - For the ends of complete justice, the appellants granted liberty to move appropriate application in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days.- Civil Courts having jurisdiction to ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 91(1), Section 92, Section 92(1)—Trust property—The power of the court to give directions, as reserved in the scheme, is distinct from the provisions of Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 92, which does not apply to selling, alienating, or mortgaging trust property—Clause (f) allows the court to permit lease, sale, mortgage, or exchange of property in cases where the trust deed prohibits such actions—However, it does not restrict the trustees or managers from managing the trust property in the best interest of the trust, including leasing, selling, mortgaging, or exchanging it when necessary. The provision for court directions in a scheme is beneficial for the trust's interest, as the court would only give directions if it's clearly in the trust's intere...