SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Mad) 818

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH
Vagesa Mudaliar (Dead) & Others - Appellant
Versus
Dakshinamurthy Mudaliar & Others - Respondents
A.S.No.704 of 1986
Decided On : 23 August 2002

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellants:Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1,R10 & R11 Mr.V. Chandrakanthan and R20 Mrs. Pushpa Sathyanarayana for Mr.T.R. Rajaraman.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the concept of total dedication of trust properties, the forfeiture of rights by the branch of Velu Mudaliar, and the inability of the first defendant to claim any right for management.

Headnote:

Trust Properties - Dedication - 77(a) - 78 - Alienation - Bona Fide Purchaser - [TOTAL DEDICATION] - [TRUST PROPERTIES] - [77(a), 78] - The court found that there was a total dedication of the suit properties and the alienations in derogation of the Trust cannot be supported. The Trust cannot get extinguished nor can there be a revocation of the Trust. The branch of Velu Mudaliar has forfeited its right to manage the Trust properties. The first defendant cannot claim any right for management. The alienation in favor of the 20th defendant cannot be sustained as she should have looked for encumbrance before purchasing the properties.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute over the management and ownership of family Trust properties. The plaintiff claimed to be the trustee of the family Trust and sought a declaration to that effect, recovery of possession of the properties, an account of income, and future income. The defendants contested the claim, arguing that the properties were only burdened with Trust and that the suit was not maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a total dedication of the suit properties and the alienations in derogation of the Trust cannot be supported. The Trust cannot get extinguished nor can there be a revocation of the Trust. The branch of Velu Mudaliar has forfeited its right to manage the Trust properties. The first defendant cannot claim any right for management. The alienation in favor of the 20th defendant cannot be sustained as she should have looked for encumbrance before purchasing the properties.

Issues: The main issues were whether there was a total dedication of the suit properties, whether the plaintiff's heirs would be entitled to a declaration that they have absolute rights with regard to management of the properties, and whether the first defendant can claim any right for management.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was a total dedication of the suit properties, and the alienations in derogation of the Trust cannot be supported. The Trust cannot get extinguished nor can there be a revocation of the Trust. The branch of Velu Mudaliar has forfeited its right to manage the Trust properties. The first defendant cannot claim any right for management. The alienation in favor of the 20th defendant cannot be sustained as she should have looked for encumbrance before purchasing the properties.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Court, and decreed the suit as prayed for by the appellants. However, there was no order as to costs.

Judgment :-

K. SAMPATH, J.

The plaintiff in O.S.No.84/82 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nagapattinam, filed the appeal before this Court and pending appeal, he died and his legal representatives have come on record as appellants 2 to 4.

2. For easier appreciation of the facts of the case, it would be necessary to have the genealogy extracted.

GENEALOGY

Thiruvenkata Mudaliar (Died)

-------------------------------------------------

' '

Velu Mudaliar (Died) Vaithilinga Mudaliar

-------------------- (Died)

| | ---------------------

Subba Mudaliar Ramalinga | |

(Died) Mudaliar(Died) Thiruvenkatam Sankara-

-------------- | (Died-1940) murthy

| | | (Died-1941)

Ramiah (Died)= | | ----------------

Neelathanni(D10) | | |

Baskarathanni(D11) | | 1.Natesa

----------------------------- | Mudaliar(Died-

' ' | on 26-9-1981)

Singaravelu Krishnasamy | 2.Vagesa Mudaliar

(Died) (Died) | (Plaintiff)

| | | 3.Kalyanasundara

------------------- Balakrishnan(D14) | Mudaliar (D2)

1. Kunjithapatham= |

Renganayagi(D12) |

2. Jayaram D13) |

|

-------------------------------------------------

' ' ' ' '

Ramalingam Shanmugham Vaidilingam Gopala- Santhanam

(Died) (D3) (D4) krishnan (D6)

| (D5)

-----------------------------------

' ' '

Subramanian Rajappa Thiruvenkatam

(D7) (D8) (D9)

3. The case in the plaint is as follows:

The ancestors of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 14 belonged to a very affluent family. They had a lot of wet and dry lands, buildings and sites in various villages in Nagapattinam Taluk. The original ancestor was one Thiruvenkata Mudaliar. He had two sons Vaithilinga Mudaliar and Velu Mudaliar. Vaithilinga Mudaliar in his turn had two sons Thiruvenkata Mudaliar and Sankaramurthy Mudaliar. Thiruvenkata Mudaliar had five sons Ramalingam, Shanmugham, Vaithilingam, Gopalakrishnan and Santhanam. Ramalingam died leaving behind three sons, Subramaniam, Rajappa and Thiruvenkatam. Sankaramurthy's sons were Natesa Mudaliar, Vagesa Mudaliar, the plaintiff in the suit, and Kalyanasundara Mudaliar. Natesa Mudaliar died on 26-9-1981. His son is Dakshinamurthy. Dakshinamurthy is the first defendant while Kalyanasundara Mudaliar is the second defendant. Thiruvenkata Mudaliar's sons Shanmugham, Vaithilingam, Gopalakrishnan and Santhanam are respectively D-3, D-4, D-5 and D-6. Ramalinga Mudaliar's sons Subramanian, Rajappa and Thiruvenkatam are defendants 7 to 9.

Velu Mudaliar had two sons Subba Mudaliar and Ramalingam Mudaliar. Subba Mudaliar's son was Ramiah. His wife is Neelathanni, the 10th defendant, and her daughter Baskarathanni is D-11. Velu Mudaliar's other son Ramalingam Mudaliar's sons were Singaravel and Krishnasamy. Singaravel's son was Kunjithapatham. His wife Ranganayagi is D-12. Singaravel's other son Jayaraman is D-13. Krishnasamy's son Balakrishnan is D-14. Defendants 15 to 22 are the alienees and defendants 23 to 45 are the lessees.

Senganni Sankaramurthy set apart properties for family charities. After Thiruvenkata Mudaliar, his sons Velu Mudaliar and Vaithilinga Mudaliar were managing the choultry and the properties set apart for charity. After them, the heirs of Vaithilinga Mudaliar, viz. Thiruvenkata Mudaliar and Sankaramurhty Mudaliar on the one hand and Velu Mudaliar's heirs on the other were managing the Trust for 6 faslis each alternatively. In suit item 2, Thiruvenkata Mudaliar had constructed a Vinayagar Temple and was performing pooja, neivedyam, etc. and on the Anniversary days of Senganni Sankaramurthy and on other days they were performing annadhanam. The right to manage the Trust was being shared alternatively by the two branches for 6 faslis each. Thiruvengada Mudaliar and his brother Sankaramurthy Mudaliar had a partition deed executed on 28-2-1916, as per the terms of which, it was agreed that Thiruvengada Mudaliar as along as he was alive, would manage for 6 faslis and after him, Sankaramurthy Mudaliar and after the lifetime of both of them, the eldest male member in their families would have to manage for 6 faslis. In accordance with



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top