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.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

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 wi