{"id":39872,"date":"1974-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1974-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974"},"modified":"2018-04-12T00:36:39","modified_gmt":"2018-04-11T19:06:39","slug":"management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974","title":{"rendered":"Management Committee T. K. … vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Management Committee T. K. … vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1495, \t\t 1974 SCR (3) 872<\/div>\n
Author: H R Khanna<\/div>\n
Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMANAGEMENT COMMITTEE T. K. GHOSH'S ACADEMY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT. C. PALIT & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/04\/1974\n\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nBENCH:\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1974 AIR 1495\t\t  1974 SCR  (3) 872\n 1974 SCC  (2) 354\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution\tof    India,\t1950--Art.    133(1)(a)\t   &\n(b)--Distinction between clause (a) and (b).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for the ejectment  of\nthe defendant appellant from the premises in dispute and for\nrecovery  of certain amount on account of arrears  of  rent.\nThe defendant-appellant on the other hand claimed that-under\nthe  deed  of trust they were entitled to  occupy  the\tsaid\npremises  without payment of rent.  The lower court  decreed\nthe suit in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents.  On appeal\nthe  High  Court  set aside the\t decree\t for  ejectment\t and\nreduced\t the  amount for recovery.  The High  Court  granted\ncertificate  of\t fitness under clauses (a) and (b)  of\tArt.\n133(1) of the Constitution.\nOn appeal it was contended by the respondents that the\tHigh\nCourt  was wrong in granting the certificate of fitness\t and\nthat it should be cancelled.\nDismissing  the application for cancellation of\t certificate\nof fitness,\nHELD : The appeal is maintainable under Art. 133 (1) (b)  of\nthe Constitution.\nTo attract the application of Art. 133(1)(b) it is essential\nthat  there  must  be  a  judgment  involving  directly\t  or\nindirectly some claim or question respecting property of  an\namount\tor value not less than rupees twenty thousand.\t The\nvariation  in  the language used in clauses (a) and  (b)  of\nArt.  133(1)  pointedly\t highlights  the  conditions   which\nattract\t the application of the two clauses.   Under  clause\n(a)  what is decisive is the amount or value of the  subject\nmatter in the court of first instance and \"still in dispute\"\nin appeal to the Supreme Court : under clause (b) it is\t the\namount or value of the property respecting which a claim  or\nquestion  is involved in the judgment sought to be  appealed\nfrom.\tThe expression \"property\" is not defined but  having\nregard\tto  the\t use of the  expression\t \"amount\"  it  would\napparently include money.  But the property respecting which\nthe claim or question arises must be property in addition to\nor  other than the subject matter of the dispute.  If  in  a\nproposed  appeal  there\t is  no\t claim\tor  question  raised\nrespecting  property other than the subject  matter,  clause\n(a) will apply : if there is involved in the appeal a  claim\nor  question respecting property of an amount or  value\t not\nless than rupee twenty thousand in addition to or other than\nthe  subject  matter of the dispute clause (b)\twill  apply.\n[878 F-H]\nChhitarmal v. M\/s.  Shah Pannalal Chandulal,<\/a> [1965] 2 S.C.R.\n751, referred to.\nThe  judgment of the High Court in the present case  plainly\ndid  not affirm the decision of the trial court because\t the\nHigh  Court  set  aside the decree for\tejectment  and\talso\nreduced\t the  amount for the recovery of  which\t decree\t for\nejectment  and also reduced the amount for the\trecovery  of\nwhich  decree  had  been awarded by the\t trial\tcourt.\t The\nvariation of the decree of the trial court was in favour  of\nthe  defendants-appellants but that circumstance  would\t not\ndetract\t from the fact that the judgment of the\t High  Court\nwas  not  one  of affirmance of the decision  of  the  trial\ncourt.\tIn determining the character of the appellate decree\nwhat has to be looked into is the appellate decree taken  in\nits entirety and compare it with the decision of the  trial-\ncourt as a whole and decide whether the appellate decree  is\none of affirmance or not.  In this enquiry the nature of the\nvariation  made\t whether it is in favour  of  the  intending\nappellant or otherwise would not be relevant. [877 G-H]\nTirumalachetti\tRajaram\t v.  Tirumalachetti  Radhakrishnayya\nChetty,<\/a> [1962] 2 S.C.R. 452, followed.\nIn the instant case the said premises were admittedly of the\nvalue  of  more\t than rupees twenty  thousand.\t The  school\npremises were plainly not the subject\n873\nmatter\tof the dispute because if that had been so the\tcase\nwould  have  fallen under clause (a).  On the  contrary\t the\npresent\t was a case relating to a claim respecting  property\nof the value of more than rupees twenty thousand.  The\tcase\nas such would fall within the ambit of clause (b). [879 C]\nSurapati  Roy  & Ors. v. Rant Narayan Mukherji\t&  Ors.,  50\nIndian Appeals 155, relied on.\nBombay Gas Co. Ltd. v. Jagan Nath Pandurang & Anr.<\/a> [1972]  3\nS.C.R. 929 held inapplicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 570 of 1969.
\nFrom the Judgment and decree dated the 29th September,\t1967
\nof   the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No.
\n459 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
D.   P. Uniyal and S. N. Singh, for the appellant.
\nS.C.  Agarwala,\t V. J. Francis and S. S.  Bhatnagar,  for
\nrespondent nos. 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nKHANNA,\t J.  A\tdecree for ejectment from  the\tpremises  in
\ndispute\t and for recovery of Rs. 7,163\/12\/3 was\t awarded  by
\nlearned\t Additional  Sub Judge Patna in favour\tof  the\t two
\nplaintiff-respondents,\tagainst the Board of Trustees T.  K.
\nGhosh’s Academy Patna and other defendants.  On appeal filed
\nby some of the defendants the Patna High Court set aside the
\ndecree for ejectment.  The amount for the recovery of  which
\ndecree had been awarded by the trial court was also  reduced
\nto  Rs.\t 3,725\/2\/-.  The present appeal has  been  filed  on
\ncertificate by the Managing Committee T. K. Ghosh’s  Academy
\nand other defendants against the decision of the High Court.
\nThe two plaintiff-respondents are the sons of Shri Jadu Nath
\nPalit  who founded in 1876 a school known as T.\t K.  Ghosh’s
\nAcademy.   The school attracted some of. the  best  students
\nand  Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Dr. B. C. Roy, Mr. Hasan Imam\t and
\nMr.  Sachidanand  Sinha\t received their\t education  in\tthis
\nschool.\t  The  school was run in premises  which  originally
\nbelonged  to one Mr. Boilard.  Shri Jadu Nath died  in\t1901
\nleaving\t behind\t three\tminor sons, two of’  whom  were\t the
\nplaintiff-respondents and the third was their brother Dr. K.
\nL.  Palit.  After Jadu Nath’s death, the management  of\t the
\nschool\twas looked after by the sons of Shri T. K. Ghosh  in
\nwhose memory the school had been founded.  Shri T. K.  Ghosh
\nwas  them  brother-in-law  of Shri Jadu\t Nath.\t A  Managing
\nCommittee  was\tformed by the sons of T. K.  Ghosh  for\t the
\nmanagement  of the school in 1905 or 1906.   Nearabout\t1914
\nthe  management\t of the school was taken over by  Shri\tJadu
\nNath’s\tsons.\tIn 1918-19 them Managing  Committee  of\t the
\nschool\twas  reformed under the directions of the  Board  of
\nSecondary  Education.\tOn  September 11,  1919\t the  school
\nbuilding  was purchased by the three sons of Shri Jadu\tNath
\nfrom  Mr. Boilarld as per sale deed Ex.C. On July  28,\t1930
\nDr.  K.\t L Palit sold his share in the\tschool\tbuilding  in
\nfavour of his two brothers, viz-, the plaintiff-respondents,
\nas per sale deed Ex.Cl.\n<\/p>\n
874<\/span><\/p>\n
On  August 13, 1950 the two  plaintiff-respondents  executed
\nDeed  of Trust.\t Ex.P appointing Rai Bahadur Nirmal  Chandra
\nGhosh, Retired District and Sessions Judge and six others as
\ntrustees  of the school.  The object and the subject  matter
\nof the trust would be clear from the following :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whereas\tthe settlors are the proprietors  of
\n\t      the  High English School named T.\t K.  Ghosh’s
\n\t      Academy,\tnew located in a building owned\t and
\n\t      possessed by the settlors situated in  Mahalla
\n\t      Chowahatta thana Pirbahore district Patna.
\n\t      And whereas the settlors being desirous of the
\n\t      continuance of the school and the perpetuation
\n\t      of  the memory of the person after whom it  is
\n\t      named  and  the association of same  with\t the
\n\t      name  of the institution, of the retention  in
\n\t      it of Bengali as a subject of instruction\t and
\n\t      also  as\ta medium of instruction\t as  far  as
\n\t      possible\t and   also  of\t  the\timprovement,
\n\t      extension\t  or  alteration  as   regards\t the
\n\t      standard\tand subjects of instruction  in\t the
\n\t      institution as may be considered suitable\t for
\n\t      the  benefit  of\tstudents,  have\t decided  to
\n\t      settle  in  trust for this  purpose  the\tsaid
\n\t      school  consisting  of  its  name\t good\twill
\n\t      together\t‘with its funds, furniture,  library
\n\t      and    other   educational   appliances\t and
\n\t      equipments   as  a   functioning\t institution
\n\t      affiliated  to  the Patna\t University  in\t the
\n\t      manner   and  on\tthe  condition\t hereinafter
\n\t      following.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Now this Deed witnesses as follows\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1.In  pursuance of_the said desire of  the
\n\t      settlors\tthe settlors do hereby transfer\t and
\n\t      assign unto the trustees the ,,aid High School
\n\t      T.  K. Ghosh’s Academy with all that  property
\n\t      consisting  of the funds,\t furniture,  library
\n\t      and  equipments described and detailed in\t the
\n\t      schedule hereto to hold the same upon trust to
\n\t      fulfil  the object of the settlors and on\t the
\n\t      conditions and with and subject to the  powers
\n\t      provisions and agreements herein contained.”
\n\t      Clauses  4,  6 9, 10, 11 and 15 of  the  trust
\n\t      read as under
\n\t      “(4) The trustees will be entitled to nominate
\n\t      2\t (two)\tmembers out of\tthemselves,  to\t the
\n\t      managing\tcommittee of the school in  addition
\n\t      to  the  Headmaster who will ex-officio  be  a
\n\t      member.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (6)At  least  one male descendant\t of  Babu
\n\t      Jadu Nath Palit deceased shall, if  available,
\n\t      be always a member of the body of trustees.
\n\t      (9)The  trustees shall find other\t premises
\n\t      for  the location of the school and shift\t the
\n\t      school there within 5 (five) years of the date
\n\t      of the deed and vacate the present premises to
\n\t      the settlors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (10)The  trustees\t shall forthwith  start\t a
\n\t      building fund for the school.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      875<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      (11)The  settlors will receive a house  rent
\n\t      of Rs. 250\/per month for the said period of  5
\n\t      (five) years for the premises now occupied  by
\n\t      the  school  as owners of\t the  premises.\t the
\n\t      settlors\thave  agreed that any  surplus\tleft
\n\t      over  therefrom,\tafter  deducting-the  amount
\n\t      spent on necessary repairs of the house and on
\n\t      taxes,  ground rent and other  necessary\tout-
\n\t      goings in respect of the premises for the said
\n\t      period  of  5  (five) years  will\t go  as\t the
\n\t      contribution  of the settlors to the  building
\n\t      fund as\tprovided in the preceding paragraph,
\n\t      and the trustees will  be entitled to  receive
\n\t      directly\tfrom  the school such  surplus\t and
\n\t      deposit it in the said building fund.
\n\t      (15) All matters and questions relating to the
\n\t      proprietary rights in the school (exclusive of
\n\t      the land and buildings where in the school, is
\n\t      at  present located, which does not from\tpart
\n\t      of the trust property) and its properties will
\n\t      be disposed of by the trustees.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It may be stated that the school building initially stood on
\nholding No. 20. In 1951 the building was extended to holding
\nNo.  22 also. The upper portion of the building\t on  holding
\nNo. 22 is used for the headmaster’s residence and the  lower
\nportion for running the classes. According to the plaintiff-
\nrespondents, it was agreed that they would be paid a rent of
\nRs.  37\/8\/-  for the building on holding No. 22.  The  total
\nrent thus came to Rs. 287\/8\/- i.e. Rs. 250 for the  building
\non holding No. 20 and Rs. 3718\/- for the building on holding
\nNo. 22. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that in  or
\nabout  June  1956  it was settled by the  trustees  and\t the
\nManaging Committee of the school with  the  consent of\tthe
\nplaintiffs  that  out of the monthly rent of Rs.  287\/8\/-  a
\ncash  amount  of  Rs. 190\/- would be paid  directly  to\t the
\nplaintiffs  and the balance,of Rs. 97\/8\/- could be  paid  by
\nthe  Managing  Committee of the school to the  trustees\t for
\npayment\t of latrine and water taxes of the municipality\t and
\nfor  meeting  costs of periodical repairs. As  the  premises
\nwere  not vacated within five years of the execution of\t the
\nDeed  of  Trust,  the  plaintiff-respondents  after  serving
\nnotice\tof  demand filed the present suit on July  28,\t1959
\nagainst\t the  Board of Trustees r. K.  Ghosh’s\tAcademy\t and
\nother  defendants.  One\t of  the  reliefs  claimed  was\t for
\nejectment  of the defendants from the premises\tin  dispute.
\nThe other relief claimed was for recovery of Rs.  7,163\/12\/3
\non  account of arrears of rent from August, 1956 till  July,
\n1959  and  other items, the details of which were  given  in
\nSchedule I to the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
 The suit was contested by defendants No. 2, 3, 7 and 12
\nin-their capacity as members of the Managing Committee.\t The
\nother  defendants, including the trustees, did\tnot  contest
\nthe suit. According to the contesting defendants, there\t was
\nno   relationship  of  landlord\t and  tenant   between\t the
\nplaintiffs  and\t T.  K. Ghosh’s\t Academy  and  its  Managing
\nCommittee. It was also stated that there was no contract  to
\npay the rent of Rs. 287\/8\/- per month. The Deed of Trust was
\nstated\tby  the\t contesting  defendants\t to  be\t fraudulent,
\nillusory  and  void  document.\tAccording  further  to\t the
\ncontesting defendants, the school was founded by the  father
\nof  plaintiffs\tfor the uplift of education and\t for  public
\ngood  with  no motive to derive any  personal  benefit.\t The
\nbuilding was
\n876<\/span>
\nalso  stated to have been dedicated by the founder  for\t the
\nuse of the public.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court, as mentioned earlier, decreed the suit.  It
\nwas  held  that the Deed of Trust was a\t genuine  and  valid
\ndocument  and  was binding on the school  and  its  Managing
\nCommittee.  As regards the existence of the relationship  of
\nlandlord and tenant, the trial court held that the  contract
\nof  tenancy  was  evidenced by the Deed\t of  Trust  and\t was
\nbinding upon the parties.\n<\/p>\n
In  appeal before the High Court contention was advanced  on
\nbehalf\tof the contesting defendants that there had  been  a
\ndedication of the school building in favour of the school by
\nthe father of the plaintiff-respondents who had founded\t the
\nschool.\t  Argument  was further advanced that there  was  no
\nrelationship of landlord and tenant between the parties\t and
\nthe  Deed  of,\tTrust was not binding  upon  the  contesting
\ndefendants.   Contention was also raised that the  suit\t for
\nejectment  was not maintainable unless the tenancy had\tbeen
\ndetermined  by the giving of a notice under section  106  of
\nthe  Transfer of Property Act.\tThe High Court rejected\t the
\ncontention  that  there had been dedication  of\t the  school
\nbuilding.  Likewise, the contention that there did not arise
\nthe relationship of landlord and tenant between the  parties
\nwas  rejected.\t The  High Court set aside  the\t decree\t for
\nejectment because it was of the view that such decree  could
\nbe awarded only after determination of the tenancy by giving
\na notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property\tAct.
\nThe  High Court further reduced the amount for the  recovery
\nof which the decree had been awarded, because it was of\t the
\nview  that  certain deductions were permissible out  of\t the
\namounts claimed by the plaintiffs.  In the result the amount
\nfor  which  decree  had\t been awarded  was  reduced  to\t Rs.
\n3,725\/2\/-.\n<\/p>\n
At  the hearing of the appeal Mr. Agarwal on behalf  of\t the
\nplaintiff-respondents has contended that the High Court\t was
\nin error in granting a certificate of fitness for appeal  to
\nthis  Court  in\t favour\t of  the  defendant-appellants.\t  An
\napplication has also been filed on behalf of the  plaintiff-
\nrespondents for canceling the certificate of fitness granted
\nby  the High Court.  This application has been\tresisted  by
\nthe appellants.\n<\/p>\n
We  may state at the outset that the High Court granted\t the
\ncertificate of fitness under clauses (a) and (b) of  article
\n133(1)\tof  the Constitution.  Mr. Uniyal on behalf  of\t the
\nappellants has frankly stated that the certificate could  be
\ngranted only under clause (b) and not under clause (a).\t  We
\nagree  with  Mr.  Uniyal in this respect,  and\tare  of\t the
\nopinion that there is no sufficient ground for canceling the
\ncertificate of fitness.\n<\/p>\n
The  plaintiff-respondents, as would appear from the  resume
\nof  facts given above, had prayed for a decree of  ejectment
\nfrom  the  premises  in\t dispute and  for  recovery  of\t Rs.
\n7,163\/76,\/-.   The  jurisdictional  value of  the  suit\t was
\nmentioned to be Rs. 10,613\/76\/- consisting of the amount  of
\nRs. 7,163\/76 and Rs. 3450 representing 12 months rent at the
\nrate  of  Rs. 287\/50.  The present case did not\t fall  under
\nclause (a)     of  article  133(1) because it could  not  be
\nsaid that the amount or
\n 877<\/span>
\nvalue of the subject-matter of the dispute was not less than
\ntwenty\tthousand rupees.  Question then arises\twhether\t the
\ndefendant-appellants  were  entitled  to  certificate  under
\nclause\t(b)  of\t article  133(1).   Article  133(1)  at\t the
\nrelevant time read as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “133  (1) An appeal shall lie to\tthe  Supreme
\n\t      Court from any judgment, decree or final order
\n\t      in  a civil proceeding of a High Court in\t the
\n\t      territory\t  of   India  if  the\tHigh   Court
\n\t      certifies-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   that the amount or value of the subject-
\n\t      matter  of the dispute in the court  of  first
\n\t      instance\tand still in dispute on\t appeal\t was
\n\t      and is not less than twenty thousand rupees or
\n\t      such  other  sum as may be specified  in\tthat
\n\t      behalf by Parliament by law; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   that  judgment,  decree or\tfinal  order
\n\t      involves directly or indirectly some claim  or
\n\t      question\trespecting  property  of  the\tlike
\n\t      amount or value; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   that the case is a fit one for appeal to
\n\t      the Supreme Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      and, where the judgment, decree or final order
\n\t      appealed\tfrom  affirms the  decision  of\t the
\n\t      court immediately below in ,my case other than
\n\t      a\t case referred to in sub-clause (c)  if\t the
\n\t      High  Court further certifies that the  appeal
\n\t      involves some substantial question of law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It may be stated that there has been a subsequent  amendment
\nof article 133(1) by the Constitution (Thirtieth  Amendment)
\nAct,  1973.  We are, however, in the present case  concerned
\nwith the article as it stood before the amendment.   Perusal
\nof  clause (b) of article 133(1) shows that an appeal  shall
\nlie  to this Court from any judgment, decree or final  order
\nin  a  civil proceeding of a High Court if  the\t High  Court
\ncertifies that the judgment, decree or final order  involves
\ndirectly  or  indirectly some claim or\tquestion  respecting
\nproperty  of  the  value of not less  than  twenty  thousand
\nrupees.\t  It is further necessary that where  the  judgment,
\ndecree or final order appealed from affirms the decision  of
\nthe  court immediately below, the High Court should  certify
\nthat  the appeal involves some substantial question of\tlaw.
\nThe  judgment of the High Court in the present case  plainly
\ndid  not affirm the decision of the trial court because\t the
\nHigh  Court  set  aside the decree for\tejectment  and\talso
\nreduced the amount for the recovery of which decree had been
\nawarded\t by the trial court.  It is no doubt true  that\t the
\nvariation of the decree of the trial court was in favour  of
\nthe  defendant-appellants  but that circumstance  would\t not
\ndetract\t from the fact that the judgment of the\t High  Court
\nwas  not  one  of affirmance of the decision  of  the  trial
\ncourt.\tAs observed by the Constitution Bench of this  Court
\nin  the\t case of Tirumalachetti\t Rajaram  v.  Tirumalachetti
\nRadhakrishnayya\t Chetty<\/a>(1), in determining the character  of
\nthe  appellate\tdecree;\t we have to look  at  the  appellate
\ndecree\ttaken  in  its\tentirety and  compare  it  with\t the
\ndecision of the trial court
\n(1)  [1962] 2 SCR 452.\n<\/p>\n
878<\/span><\/p>\n
as a whole and decide whether the appellate decree is one of
\naffirmance  or\tnot.   In this enquiry\tthe  nature  of\t the
\nvariation  made\t whether it is in favour  of  the  intending
\nappellant or otherwise, would not be relevant.
\nAs  regards  the  applicability of  clause  (b)\t of  article
\n133(1), we may observe\tthat  there is a  vital\t distinction
\nbetween clauses (a) and (b)   of  article  133(1)  and\t the
\nareas  covered\tby the two clauses are\tclearly\t demarcated.
\nClause\t(a) speaks of the subject-matter of the dispute\t and
\nwhat  is required by the clause to bring a case\t within\t its
\nambit  is that the amount or value of the subject-matter  of
\nthe  dispute  in the court of first instance  and  still  in
\ndispute\t was and is not less than twenty thousand rupees  or
\nsuch  other  sum  as  may be specified\tin  that  behalf  by
\nParliament  by law.  As against that, clause (b) of  Article
\n133(1) makes no mention of the subject-matter of the dispute
\nand  it\t is  immaterial for this clause as to  what  is\t the
\namount\tor value of the subject-matter in dispute.  What  is
\nessential to invoke clause (b) is that the judgment,  decree
\nor  final order should involve directly or  indirectly\tsome
\nclaim or question respecting property of the amount or value
\nof not less than twenty thousand rupees or such other sum as
\nmay  be\t specified  in that behalf  by\tParliament  by\tlaw.
\nClause\t(b) thus deals with a claim or\tquestion  respecting
\nproperty.   If\ta judgment, decree or final  order  involves
\nclaim  or question respecting property and it is shown\tthat
\nthe  property  is of the amount or value of  not  less\tthan
\ntwenty\tthousand rupees, the clause would be attracted.\t  It
\nis  plain from the language of clause (b) that the  property
\nrespecting  which  claim  or question  is  involved  in\t the
\njudgment, decree or final order is not the subject matter of
\nthe dispute, for if that property were the subject matter of
\nthe  dispute  the case would fall not under clause  (b)\t but
\nunder  clause  (a)  of\tarticle\t 133(1).   It  may  also  be
\nmentioned  that\t the  requirement of  clause  (b)  would  be
\nsatisfied  if the judgment, decree or final order  involves,
\nnot  directly  but even indirectly, some claim\tor  question
\nrespecting property of the amount or value of not less\tthan
\ntwenty thousand rupees.\n<\/p>\n
To  attract  the application of article 133 (1)\t (b)  it  is
\nessential  that\t there must be-omitting\t from  consideration
\nother conditions not material a judgment involving  directly
\nor indirectly some claim or question respecting property  of
\nan amount or value not less than Rs.20,000. The variation in
\nthe  language  used  in clauses (a) and\t (b)of\tarticle\t 133
\npointedly  highlights  the  conditions\twhich  attract\t the
\napplication  of the two clauses.  Under clause (a)  what  is
\ndecisive is the amount or value of the subject-matter in the
\ncourt of first instance and “stilt in dispute” appeal to the
\nSupreme\t Court : under clause (b) it is the amount or  value
\nof  the\t property respecting which a claim  or\tquestion  is
\ninvolved  in  the judgment sought to be\t appealed  from\t The
\nexpression ‘property” is not defined in the Code, but having
\nregard\tto  the\t use of the  expression\t “amount”  it  would
\napparently  include  money.  ‘But  the\tproperty  respecting
\nwhich  the  claim  or question arises must  be\tproperty  in
\naddition to or other than the subject-matter of the dispute.
\nIf in a proposed appeal there is no claim or question raised
\nrespecting  property other than the  subject-matter,  clause\n<\/p>\n
(a) will apply : if there is involved in the appeal a  claim
\nor question respecting property of
\n 879<\/span>
\nan  amount or value not less than Rs. 20,000 in addition  to
\nor  other than the subject-matter of the dispute clause\t (b)
\nwill   apply   (see   Chhitarmal  v.   M\/s   Shah   Pannalal
\nChandulal<\/a>(1).\n<\/p>\n
Keeping the above principles in view, we have no doubt\tthat
\nthe ,case of the appellant falls under clause (b) of article
\n133(1).\t  As  would appear from the resume  of\tfacts  given
\nearlier, the case of the plaintiffs was that the  defendants
\nwere  liable  to  pay rent for being in\t occupation  of\t the
\nschool\t premises.   As\t against  that,\t the  case  of\t the
\ndefendant-appellants  was that they were entitled to  occupy
\nthe said premises for carrying on the school without payment
\nof rent.  It is manifest that the judgment and decree of the
\nHigh  Court as well as the trial court involved a  claim  or
\nquestion respecting the school premises.  The said  premises
\nare  admittedly\t of  the value of more\tthan  rupees  twenty
\nthousand.  The school premises were plainly not the subject-
\nmatter of the dispute because if that had been so, the\tcase
\nwould  have, fallen under clause (a).  On the contrary,\t the
\npresent\t was a case relating to a claim respecting  property
\nof the value of more than rupees twenty thousand.  The\tcase
\nas  such would fall within the admit of clause (b).  We\t may
\nin  this  context  refer  to  a\t decision  of  the  Judicial
\nCommittee in the case of Surapati Roy & Ors. v. Ram  Narayan
\nMukherji  & Ors.(2). Question which arose in that  case\t was
\nregarding the validity of a certificate granted by the\tHigh
\nCourt  under  section 110 of the Code  of  Civil  Procedure.
\nThough\tthe  rent  claimed in the suits was  less  than\t Rs.
\n10,000\tthe  High Court granted a  certificate\tof  fitness.
\nObjection was taken before the Judicial Committee  regarding
\nthe  validity  of the certificate, on the  ground  that\t the
\nsubject-matter was of a value of less than, Rs. 10,000.\t The
\nobjection  was\trepelled by the Judicial  Committee  in\t the
\nfollowing words :\n<\/p>\n
“The  subject  matter  in dispute  relates  to\ta  recurring
\nliability and is in respect of a property considerably above
\nthe appealable value.  The certificate in the  circumstances
\nis quite in order.”\n<\/p>\n
Reference  has been made by Mr. Agarwal to the\tdecision  of
\nthis Court in the case of Bombay Gay Co. Ltd. v. Jagan\tNath
\nPandurang  &  Anr.<\/a>(3).\tThe respondent in  that\t case  filed
\napplications  under  the  Payment  of  Wages  Act   claiming
\novertime  wages\t for the period 1957 to 1958 and  wages\t for
\nweekly\toff days for the period 1962 to 1963, The  appellant
\nfiled appeal to this Court against the judgment of the\tHigh
\nCourt  setting\taside the order of the\tappellate  authority
\nholding\t the claim to be time-barred.  The appeal was  filed
\non  the basis of a certificate under article 133(1)(b).\t  It
\nwas held that the certificate issued by the High Court under
\narticle\t 133(1)(b)  was not proper.  Question was  posed  in
\nthat  case that the, certificate could be granted under\t the
\nabove  clause  as there was a recurring liability  which  if
\ncalculated for subsequent years would come to Rs. 20,000  or
\nmore.  This Court was not impressed with the above argument.
\nThe said case
\n(1)  [1965] 2 SCR 751.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  50 Indian Appeals 155.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  [1972] 3 SCR 929.\n<\/p>\n
3-84SuPCI\/75
\n880<\/span>
\ncannot\tbe of much assistance to  the  plaintiff-respondents
\nbecause\t in  that  case\t there\twas  no\t claim\tor  question
\nrespecting  property of the value of more than\tRs.  20,000.
\nIn  he present case we have both the elements, namely, of  a
\nrecurring claim and of a claim in respect of property of the
\nvalue of more than Rs. 20,000.\tWe, therefore, hold that the
\nappeal\tis  maintainable  under\t article  133(1)(b)  of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThe  application  for  cancellation  of\t the
\ncertificate  of\t fitness  granted  by  the  High  Court\t  is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Coming\tto the merits of the appeal, we find that  till\t the
\nexecution  of  the  Deed of Trust on August  13,  1950,\t the
\nschool\tin  question was treated as  a\tproprietary  school.
\nThis  is clear from the inspection note dated  December\t 10,
\n1947  of  the  Inspector  of  Schools.\t According  to\t the
\ninspection  note, this institution was a proprietary  school
\nand  the proprietors made good any deficit that\t accrued  in
\nrunning\t the  school efficiently.  In the  annual  statement
\ndated January 8, 1950 relating to the school which had to be
\nfurnished  by  the  school  authorities\t to  the  Board\t  of
\nSecondary  Education, it was mentioned that the\t proprietors
\nof  the\t school were the plaintiff-respondents.\t It  was  by
\nDeed  of  Trust dated August 13, 1950  that  the  plaintiff-
\nrespondents   transferred  and\tassigned  to  the   trustees
\nproperty  consisting  of the funds, furniture,\tlibrary\t and
\nequipment  described  and detailed in the  Schedule  to\t the
\nTrust Deed.  The Trust Deed, however, made it clear that the
\nland  and  building wherein the school was located  did\t not
\nform part of the trust property.  As the school did not\t own
\nany  building of its own and was being run in  the  building
\nbelonging  to the plaintiff-respondents, it was resolved  by
\nthe trustees that efforts be made for acquiring land for the
\nschool building and for collecting and depositing funds\t for
\nthe  construction of the building.  This is clear  from\t the
\nresolutions  passed in the meetings of the trustees held  on
\nMay 21, 1951 and April 20, 1952.\n<\/p>\n
It  has\t been  argued on behalf of the\tappellants  that  no
\nliability  for\tpayment\t of rent can be\t fastened  upon\t the
\ndefendants  and that the High Court was in error in  holding
\nto the contrary.  There is, in our opinion, no force in this
\ncontention.  It has been proved upon the material on  record
\nthat  the  Managing  Committee has  been  receiving  deficit
\ngrants\tfrom  the  Government on  the  basis  of  statements
\nshowing\t house rent payable by it for school building to  be
\nRs. 250 plus Rs. 37.50 per month.  In view of the fact\tthat
\nthe  school  receives  grant  from  the\t Government  on\t the
\nrepresentation\tthat an amount of Rs. 287.50 has to be\tpaid
\non account of house rent, it hardly lies in the mouth of the
\nappellants  to\tassert that there is no\t liability  for\t the
\npayment\t of  rent for the school building.  In\taddition  to
\nthat, we find that the Managing
\n 881<\/span>
\nCommittee  in its resolution passed in the meeting  held  on
\nDecember 23, 1954 admitted that an amount of Rs. 287.50\t was
\nto  be\tpaid  as  rent to the  proprietors  for\t the  school
\npremises  including  the portion in the\t occupation  of\t the
\nheadmaster.  The fact that rent of Rs. 287.50 was agreed  to
\nbe  paid for the school buildings was also mentioned in\t the
\naudit  report  relating to the school for the  period  April
\n1956 to October 1956.\n<\/p>\n
In  view of the above material, we find no cogent ground  to
\ninterfere  with the judgment of the High  Court\t maintaining
\ndecree for recovery of money to the extent of Rs.  3,725\/2\/-
\nin   favour  of\t the  plaintiff-respondents.\tThe   appeal
\nconsequently   fails   and   is\t dismissed,   but   in\t the
\ncircumstances without costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n882<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Management Committee T. K. … vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974 Equivalent citations: 1974 AIR 1495, 1974 SCR (3) 872 Author: H R Khanna Bench: Khanna, Hans Raj PETITIONER: MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE T. K. GHOSH’S ACADEMY Vs. RESPONDENT: T. C. PALIT & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/04\/1974 BENCH: KHANNA, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nManagement Committee T. K. ... vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Management Committee T. K. ... vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1974-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-11T19:06:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Management Committee T. K. … vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974\",\"datePublished\":\"1974-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T19:06:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974\"},\"wordCount\":4138,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974\",\"name\":\"Management Committee T. K. ... vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1974-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-11T19:06:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Management Committee T. K. … vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Management Committee T. K. ... vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Management Committee T. K. ... vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1974-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-11T19:06:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Management Committee T. K. … vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974","datePublished":"1974-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T19:06:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974"},"wordCount":4138,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974","name":"Management Committee T. K. ... vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1974-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-11T19:06:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/management-committee-t-k-vs-t-c-palit-ors-on-9-april-1974#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Management Committee T. K. … vs T. C. Palit & Ors on 9 April, 1974"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39872","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}