1. Dispute over eligibility for appointment as a founder trustee of a public trust based on the residence requirement under the Scheme of Administration. (Para 2 , 25 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 420
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VINEET SARAN, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
V. Prakash @ G.N.V. Prakash – Appellant
VERSUS
M/s. P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons’ Charities Represented By Its Managing Trustee & ORS. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3791 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6706 of 2021)
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Interpretation of Statute – When a particular word or expression in any document is to be operated and applied, all relevant characteristics available in praesenti have to be kept in view for a meaningful and purposeful construction.
(2) Residence – Question of residence in every case depends on facts, but word ‘reside’ usually means something more than a flying visit or a casual stay.
(1) Interpretation of Statute – When a particular word or expression in any document is to be operated and applied, all relevant characteristics available in praesenti have to be kept in view for a meaningful and purposeful construction.
(2) Residence – Question of residence in every case depends on facts, but word ‘reside’ usually means something more than a flying visit or a casual stay.
Subject
TRUSTS AND ESTATES - TRUSTEES
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Interpretation of Statute – Words and expressions in deeds or statutes are preferably provided their contextual and contemporary meaning – In this process of construction, words and expressions are not viewed as fossil remains; rather they retain organic character and do take their meaning from all surroundings – When a particular word or expression in any document is to be operated and applied, all relevant characteristics available in praesenti have to be kept in view for a meaningful and purposeful construction – That meaning should not do violence to real intent and purpose – It is one thing to alter term of a document and cannot be equated with process of assigning a purposeful meaning to a particular expression – In true rules of construction, words are always assigned meaning which stand in tandem with their context, while assuring that assigned meaning serves the purpose. (Para 28 and 29)
(B) Words and Phrases – Residence – Question of residence in every case depends on facts, but word ‘reside’ usually means something more than a flying visit or a casual stay – A particular word like “resides” could carry multiple different connotations with reference to time or period of its interpretation and connotations may be different than those understood about 100 years back. (Paras 25.2 and 28)
(C) Civil Procedure Code,1908 – Explanation IV to Section 11 – Res Judicata – What is applicable to question of estoppel would not directly apply to question of res judicata – When question of qualification or disqualification could have been raised and was not raised by present contesting respondents, it is difficult to say that principles of res judicata and at any rate, those of constructive res judicata would not apply. (Para 32.2)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal, by the plaintiff of a suit for declaration and injunction, is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2021, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No. 978 of 2020 whereby, the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by contesting defendants (respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein) and has set aside judgment and decree dated 12.10.2020, as passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in Original Suit No. 160 of 2018.
Findings of Court:
Judgment of High Court remains unsustainable. Trial Court had rightly analysed the evidence on record and arrived at a just conclusion in upholding the claim of the appellant to the office of founder trustee in respondent-Trust as the representative of the branch of Shri P.S.G. Narayanaswami Naidu.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):V. Mohana, B. Ragunath, Sriram P., Advocates
For the Respondent(s):M. N. Rao, S. Thananjayan, Aaina Verma, Jaswanthi, Promila, Biju P Raman, I. Abrar Md. Abdullah, B. Karunakaran, Balam B., E. Sudarsanan, Raghul Jain, Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):V. Mohana, B. Ragunath, Sriram P., Advocates
For the Respondent(s):M. N. Rao, S. Thananjayan, Aaina Verma, Jaswanthi, Promila, Biju P Raman, I. Abrar Md. Abdullah, B. Karunakaran, Balam B., E. Sudarsanan, Raghul Jain, Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Whether holding a foreign permanent resident card and spending significant time abroad disqualifies a candidate from fulfilling the residence requirement for trusteeship. (Para 11 , 18 , 20 )
3. The court rejected a literal, mathematical count of days, emphasizing that residence must be interpreted contextually, contemporaneously, and in line with the trust's hereditary spirit. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Terms in a trust scheme must be assigned contextual and contemporary meanings that serve the document's purpose, rather than strict literal interpretations. (Para 28 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Trial Court decree restored; appellant recognized as founder trustee. (Para 33 , 34 )
6. How should the term reside be interpreted in a trust's Scheme of Administration?
It should be given a contextual and contemporary meaning rather than a strict literal or mathematical interpretation. The court must consider the object of the document and modern realities of communication and transport to ensure the purpose of effective participation is met. (Para 28 )
7. Does holding a US Green Card automatically disqualify a person from being a resident of India for trusteeship?
No. A Green Card is a privilege of permanent residency in the US and does not automatically terminate Indian citizenship or residency. Residence is determined by factors like Aadhaar cards, bank accounts, and tax assessments, not merely by a count of days. (Para 24 , 26 )
8. When does the principle of res judicata or constructive res judicata apply between co-defendants?
It applies when a matter that might and ought to have been made a ground of defense or attack in a former suit was not raised, provided the parties were litigating under the same title. (Para 32 )
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
| Table of Contents | |
| 1 | Preliminary |
| 2 | Relevant factual matrix and background |
| 3 | The respondent-Trust and its constituents |
| 4 | First round of litigation and relevant events |
| 5 | Second round of litigation and relevant events |
| 6 | Third round of litigation & subject-matter before this Court |
| 7 | Findings of the Trial Court |
| 8 | Findings of the High Court |
| 9 | Other claimants |
| 10 | Rival Submissions |
| 11 | The appellant’s claim rightly accepted by the Trial Court |
| 12 | The questions of res judicata and estoppel |
| 13 | Conclusion |
Preliminary
Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by the plaintiff of a suit for declaration and injunction, is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.03.2021, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, For short, ‘the High Court’, in Appeal Suit No. 978 of 2020 whereby, the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the contesting defendants (respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein) and has set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2020, as passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, For short, ‘the Trial Court’, in Original Suit No. 160 of 2018.
2.1 In the suit aforesaid, the plaintiff-appellant sought the relief of declaration that he was entitled to be appointed as the founder trustee of the public trust M/s. P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons’ Charities (respondent No. 1 herein), Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Trust’/‘the respondent-Trust’, as per its Scheme of Administration, For short, ‘SOA’, for being the surviving male descendant of the branch represented by his late father. The claim of plaintiff-appellant was resisted by the contesting respondents with reference to the fact that he was a Green Card Holder of the United States of America and was not fulfilling the requirements of ‘residing within the area of Madras Presidency’, as envisaged by the Scheme of Administration. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff-appellant was indeed a resident of the area in question and was duly qualified to hold the position of founder trustee of the respondent-Trust. The High Court, however, took the view opposite with reference to the fact that the plaintiff-appellant was continuously holding a Green Card and had stayed in India less than half of the time in the past; and the assertion of his intent of permanently residing in India was contradicted by the evidence on record. Therefore, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
3. Though a seemingly straightforward question as regards construction of the relevant terms of SOA governing the respondent-Trust and their application to the facts of present case (more particularly regarding abode/residence of plaintiff-appellant) is involved in the matter but, the position of founder trusteeship in the respondent-Trust has undergone various rounds of litigation and disputes, some of which have their own bearing in the present matter. Thus, a somewhat lengthy reference to the background aspects would be necessary.
Relevant factual matrix and background
The respondent-Trust and its constituents
4. In the first place, worthwhile it would be to take into comprehension the salient features related with the respondent-Trust and its constituents.
4.1. The respondent No. 1 - M/s P.S. Govindaswamy Naidu & Sons’ Charities - is the Trust wherein the appellant has staked the claim to be recognised as one of the founder trustees.
4.2. The respondent-Trust was initially administered as per the trust deed registered on 25.01.1926, which was executed by four persons namely, (1) Shri P.S.G. Venkataswami Naidu, (2) Shri P.S.G. Rangaswami Naidu, (3) Shri P.S.G. Ganga Naidu, and (4) Shri P.S.G. Narayanaswami Naidu. For the better and efficient administration, the general body of the Trust passed a resolution on 26.11.1934 to take legal opinion and followed it up with a request to the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in Original Suit No. 145 of 1935 to frame a Sc
