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

1969 Supreme(Mad) 81

Madras High Court
K. SRINIVASAN,R. SADASIVAM
D.Meenakshisundaram Pillai - Appellant
Versus
P.Nammalwar - Respondent
Decided On : 02/20/1969

Advocates:
K. Parasaran, S. K. Rajavelu and K. Sengotian, for Appellants; V. Thyagarajan, K. Raja Ayyar and T. S. Srinivasan, (for No. 1); P. S. Madhusudanan, for Nos. 2 to 4) and Addl. Govt. Pleader (for No. 7), for Respondents.

The interpretation of the will Exhibit A-1 and the validity of the appointment of the first defendant as trustee of the suit math.

Headnote:

HINDU LAW - RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT - TRUSTEE - QUALIFICATION - INTERPRETATION OF WILL - VALIDITY OF APPOINTMENT - SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND SCHEME - MAINTAINABILITY - HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1959, SECTION 108.

Fact of the Case:

The suit was filed for a declaration that the first defendant is not the duly appointed trustee of the suit math called Sri Dakshinamoorthi Matam, and for framing a scheme for the selection of the head of the math from among the Sirugudi Vellalas of Tirunelveli District having the necessary qualification in the vacancy that would be caused by the reason of the said declaration and to vest the math and its properties in the person so selected and to call upon the first defendant to render a true and proper account of the income and expenditure of the math from May, 1957.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the first defendant was not ineligible to be a trustee of the suit math, having regard to the terms and conditions of the will Exhibit A-1. The court also held that the suit was not hit by Section 108 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.

Issues: 1. Whether the first defendant is ineligible to be a trustee of the suit math, having regard to the terms and conditions of the will Exhibit A-1? 2. Whether the suit is hit by Section 108 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the will Exhibit A-1 and held that the founder Vedanayagaswami did not exclude a married man from becoming a trustee of the suit math. The court also held that the word "thuravi", used in the will, has been used in a loose sense and does not imply that the trustee should be a celibate. 2. The court held that the suit is not hit by Section 108 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, as none of the prayers in the suit could properly form the subject-matter of any of the suits contemplated in the Act under the several provisions such as Sections 59, 60 etc.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgement

SADASIVAM, J. :- The appellants filed the suit in the lower Court for themselves and as representatives of the Sirugudi Vellala Community of Tirunelveli District for a declaration that the first defendant Nammalwar is not the duly appointed trustee of the suit math called Sri Dakshinamoorthi Matam, and for framing a scheme for the selection of the head of the math from among the Sirugudi Vellalas of Tirunelveli District having the necessary qualification in the vacancy that would be caused by the reason of the said declaration and to vest the math and its properties in the person so selected and to call upon the first defendant to render a true and proper account of the income and expenditure of the math from May, 1957.

2. The suit math was founded by one Vedanayagaswami, who executed a registered will Exhibit A-1 dated 20th April 1920 providing for the management of the suit math. It is clear from the will and particularly from the second schedule of the same giving a description of the charities to be conducted in the math, that it was founded for carrying out the public and religious charities mentioned therein at the samadhi of the founder Gurunatha Sri Michael Sidhar. The founder Vedanayagaswami nominated one Pichandiya Pillai alias Paramanandha Sadhu as trustee for the math after his lifetime and provided for an Advisory Committee consisting of nine persons mentioned by him. He provided for hereditary succession according to lineal primogeniture of D. Vedanayagam Pillai and Kandaswami Pillai, mentioned as Nos. 1 and 9 in the Committee appointed by him. The said D. Vedanayagam Pillai is the maternal uncle of the first plaintiff's father. The sixth defendant, as the elder brother's son of first plaintiff, is the person who is entitled to become a member of the committee by hereditary right. But he has become a Christian and he is not entitled to be a member of the Committee. The second plaintiff Ramanathan is the son of Kandaswami Pillai and he is also entitled to become a member of the Advisory Committee by hereditary right. The other members of the Advisory Committee appointed by the original founder Vedanayagaswami had only a life interest in the management of the suit math as Advisory Committee members. Defendants 2 to 5, who are closely related to the first defendant, are now said to be the members of the Advisory Committee. Paramanandha Sadhu, who succeeded Vedanayagaswami as trustee of the suit math, in his turn executed the will, Ex. A-2, providing for his successor. He nominated the first defendant's father Muthu Pillai alias Paramanandaswami as the head of the math after him. Muthu Pillai alias Paramanandhaswami in his turn executed the will, Exhibit A-3 dated 20th January, 1956 appointing his own son, the first defendant herein, as his successor. The first defendant succeeded to management of the suit math on the death of his father in May, 1957 and this suit has been filed in 1961 questioning the validity of the appointment of the first defendant as the trustee under Exhibit A-3, after exchange of notices evidenced by Exhibits A-8 and A-9.

3. The founder Vedanayagaswami has mentioned the qualifications of the persons to be appointed as trustees in his will Exhibit A-l. According to him, the person nominated should have been born in Sirugudi Vellala community and he should be not less than 35 years of age and should possess good quality, good conduct, sympathy and devotion to Government and he should profess the Hindu Religion. While holding the post of a trustee, it is necessary that he should be a thuravi. It is clearly mentioned in the will that it is not, however, obligatory that the said person should wear kashayam (ochre robe). In Exhibit A-2 Paramanandha Sadhu, the successor of Vedanayagaswami, has added further conditions that the trustee nominated by him should not only remain as thuravi but also wear kashayam, that he should remain in the math and perform the pooja and other services, but should









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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