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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 695

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Sennimalai Swamy Madam Trust, Palani by L. Manoharan – Appellant
Versus
NIL – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. K.P. Krishna Shetty, Advocate or Petitioner.

Judgment :

1. Petitioner in O.P.No.7 of 1996 on the file of Principal District Judge, Dindugul is the revision petitioner herein.

2. An application was filed under Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 by petitioner for opinion, or advise or direction of the Court for sale of immovable properties belonging to the Trust. By the impugned order lower court dismissed the same on the ground that there are vacancies in the Board of Trustees and unless the same is filled up, it will not consider the request for giving opinion. The application was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order of lower court is based on misunderstanding of law. Merely because there is vacancy in the Board of Trustees that will not debar a trustee from getting opinion. Counsel further submitted that he being a hereditary trustee, he is entitled to move under section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 and the Court cannot dismiss the same for reasons stated therein.

4. After hearing counsel for petitioner, I find force in the above contentions.

5. Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 reads thus,

“ Section 7: Powers



























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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top