Back
Madras High Court
RAMAKRISHNAN,RAMANUJAM
S.N.Pachamuthu Nadar - Appellant
Versus
Tiltaiyadi Pillayar Temple Charity - Respondent
Decided On : 01/30/1970
HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS - TRUST - VALIDITY - DEDICATION TO TRUST - CONSTRUCTION OF COMPROMISE DECREE - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - LIMITATION - ADVERSE POSSESSION - APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM TRUSTEE - POWER OF COMMISSIONER - EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
A compromise decree in a suit challenging a will bequeathed properties to a charity and various legatees, appointing the widow as executor and trustee. The widow executed a sale deed conveying the plaint schedule properties to the defendant. The plaintiff, as the interim trustee of the charity, filed a suit to recover possession of the properties with mesne profits.
Finding of the Court:
1. The compromise decree created a valid endowment of the suit properties with absolute dedication to the trust and the entire income directed to be utilized for religious and charitable purposes. 2. The direction to erect a Pilliar temple and perform religious services therein did not invalidate the bequest. 3. The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the main relief was recovery of possession from a stranger to the trust, and the investigation of the trust character was incidental. 4. The suit was not barred by limitation as Article 134(b) of the Limitation Act applied, prescribing a period of 12 years from the date of death or removal from office of the previous manager. 5. The plaintiff had authority to maintain the suit as an interim trustee appointed by the Commissioner under Section 20 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.
Issues: 1. Whether the compromise decree created a valid endowment of the suit properties. 2. Whether the direction to erect a Pilliar temple and perform religious services therein invalidated the bequest. 3. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 4. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. 5. Whether the plaintiff had authority to maintain the suit as an interim trustee.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The compromise decree clearly indicated the intention to create a valid endowment, dedicating the properties absolutely to the trust and directing the entire income to be utilized for religious and charitable purposes. 2. The direction to erect a Pilliar temple and perform religious services therein was not a condition precedent to the validity of the bequest, as Hindu law allows for bequests to trustees for the establishment of an image and worship of a deity after the testator's death. 3. The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the main relief was recovery of possession from a stranger to the trust, and the investigation of the trust character was incidental. 4. The suit was not barred by limitation as Article 134(b) of the Limitation Act applied, prescribing a period of 12 years from the date of death or removal from office of the previous manager. 5. The plaintiff had authority to maintain the suit as an interim trustee appointed by the Commissioner under Section 20 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, which gave the Commissioner general superintendence and control over religious endowments, including the power to pass orders to ensure proper administration.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the plaintiff was granted the reliefs asked for. The court also suggested that the appellant could approach the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board to consider leasing out the property to him on reasonable terms, given the special circumstances of the case.
RAMAKRISHNAN, J. :- The appellant is the defendant in O. S. No. 3 of 1961, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. The respondent-plaintiff in the suit is the Thillayadi Pillayar Temple Charity by its Interim trustee, M. S. Pandian. The plaintiff filed the suit to recover possession of the plaint schedule properties with Rs. 4000 as past profits, and future mesne profits. The plaint-allegations are these. The suit properties originally belonged to one Rethinam Pillai. He executed a registered Will on 21-11-1918, bequeathing his properties to a charity and to various legatees and appointing his widow Sundarambal Achi as executor and trustee. Shortly after his death, Velusami Pillai, claiming to be his undivided brother, challenged the Will in the suit O. S. 70 of 1919 Sub-Court, Nagapattinam (which was subsequently numbered as O. S. 103 of 1921, after transfer and retransfer again to Sub-Court, Nagapattinam). There was a compromise in this suit and a decree was passed therein on 8-12-1921, This compromise decree is Ex. A-1. Clauses 5, 7 and 8 of this compromise decree are important, and they are theses:
"5. We have settled that such of the moveables that are in the possession of the respective parties shall be taken by themselves respectively, that the immoveable property mentioned in the C Schedule shall be set apart for charity, and that both shall recover the outstanding amounts and shall take the same between themselves in equal shares.
7. We are agreed that the D Schedule village shall be sold and that (the sale proceeds) shall be taken in equal shares. Out of the sale proceeds realised as aforesaid the plaintiff shall spend a sum of Rs. 2000 and build a Pilliar temple at Thillayadi.
8. The income derived from the C Schedule property is set apart for the daily pooja, the feeding of Brahmins and the Ekadasi and Krithikai ubhayams in the Pilliar temple. Veluswami Pillai and his santhathis shall manage the aforesaid charities".
2. Veluswami Pillai executed a will Ex. A-2 in favour of his wife Rajammal on 31-8-1927. The crucial recitals in that will can now be referred to:-
"My wife, Rajammal, shall succeed with all absolute rights to the moveable and immoveable properties that I had got under the decree in O. S. 103 of 1921, on the file of the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam with powers of alienation such as gift, exchange, sale etc. . . . The management of the charity mentioned in the decree in O. S.103 of 1921 aforesaid and being conducted permanently, shall be done by my wife, Rajammal, after my lifetime, from out of the income derived from the property set apart by me for that purpose."
3. The next stage in the transactions is the sale deed Ex. A-3 executed by Rajammal in favour of the defendant conveying to him the property mentioned in the C Schedule in the compromise decree. The relevant part of the sale-deed is this:
"You withheld out of the sale consideration Rs. 2000 for the dharmam, according to the compromise decree in O. S. 103 of 1921. It is agreed that I should purchase property for the said Rs. 2000 and offer it as security and then receive from you the said Rs. 2000. In the matter of my having received cash from you for performing the remaining charitable act for family expenses and to return the advance received from the tenants in the building, the amount paid to me is Rs. 1555. Since in all for the aforesaid 8 items, I have received the total amount of Rs. 8000 (Rs. eight thousand only) from this day you shall be in enjoyment of the aforesaid building etc.....with powers of alienation such as gift, exchange, sale etc......"
4. Alleging that Rajammal was acting in breach of the trust, two persons who were permanent residents of Thillayadi and devotees of the temple filed O. S. 4 of 1949 on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, directing the defendant to deliver the suit properties to the Trust after declaring that the sale in his favour by Rajammal was not binding on the trust. Th
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
