Back
1995 Supreme(Mad) 48
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HADI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN
S. Sadagopa Ramanujam
Versus
S.R. Rengasamy Iyengar & 2 others
A.S.No.156 of 1984
Decided On : 10-01-1995
Mr. G. Subramaniam Senior Counsel for Mr. W.C. Thiruvengadam for Appellant; Mr. T. R. Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Sundarain for 1st Respondent and Mr. M. Baskeran Govt. Advocate for 3 Respondent.
A defendant must specifically deny each allegation of fact in the plaint that he does not admit, and a general denial is insufficient. If a defendant fails to specifically deny an allegation, it will be taken as admitted.
Headnote:
TRUSTEESHIP - HEREDITARY TRUSTEESHIP - DISPUTE - ARBITRATION - AWARD - PARTITION - SUIT FOR JOINT TRUSTEESHIP - LIMITATION - ADMISSION OF FACTS - ORDER 8, RULES 3 AND 5 OF C.P.C. - SPECIFIC DENIAL - NON-COMPLIANCE - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a joint hereditary trustee of a temple, filed a suit against the first defendant, the sole hereditary trustee, and the second defendant, another joint hereditary trustee, seeking a declaration of his right to joint trusteeship and possession of the temple properties. The plaintiff claimed that the hereditary trusteeship was vested in him and the defendants 1 and 2 in equal shares, as per an arbitration award and subsequent partition deeds. The first defendant denied the plaintiff's claim and pleaded limitation and adverse possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to joint trusteeship and possession of the temple properties. The first defendant appealed the judgment.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to joint trusteeship? 2. Whether the first defendant has prescribed himself as the sole trustee by adverse possession? 3. Whether the suit is bad for want of Section 80 C.P.C. Notice? 4. Whether the suit is barred by time?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the first defendant had not specifically denied the plaintiff's allegations in the plaint, as required by Order 8, Rules 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that the first defendant's general denial was insufficient and that the plaintiff's allegations must be taken as admitted. The court also held that the first defendant had not established his plea of limitation or adverse possession.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
AR. Lakshmanan, J.
The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are the sole hereditary trustees of the temple and the plaintiff is a joint hereditary trustee, along with defendants 1 and 2. One Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar, who was a common ancestor of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 was the sole hereditary trustee of the said temple throughout his life. Before him, his ancestore were the hereditary trustee. Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar owned considerable lands in many villages and major portion of the lands belonging to the temples were endowed by Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar and his forefathers. Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar died in 1867, and left him surviving his five sons. Besides the hereditary trusteeship of the three suit temples, the family owned a big temple in Katteri and was performing a large number of Charities, Mandahappadis etc., in several places. Several valuable properties were endowed for the said purpose and Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar was managing and administering all these as hereditary trustee. After his death, disputes arose between his sons regarding the division of the family properties and disqualification of the 5th son Iyyasami Iyengar and division and devolution of the various trusteeship and the performance of the trusts and management of the trust properties. All these disputes were referred to sole arbitration of one Vakil C.Ramaswami Iyer of Mannargudi, who made and passed an award dated 20.9.1985 and the same was marked as Exhibit A-1 in the suit on the side of the plaintiff. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the said award was accepted by all the parties and was acted upon eversince the date of the award. Under the terms of the said award some properties were allotted to the share of Iyyasami Iyengar, inspite of his disqualification and that bulk of the properties were allotted to his other four brothers. Hereditary trusteeship of the three temples was as per para 21 of the Award vested in one son and two grandsons of Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar and their branches i.e., Srinivasa Iyengar, the second son, and his descendants who came to be designated as ‘B’ branch, they being entitled to half share in the management. Likewise, Rajagopala Iyengar and Ramanuja Iyengar sons of the 4th son Venkatachariar came to be designated as ‘B’ branch, they have been entitled to other half share in the management of hereditary trusteeship. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that the devolution of the hereditary trusteeship in accordance with the provision was also accepted and acted upon by al l the parties and never questioned and therefore the same is perfectly legal, valid and binding on all the parties. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that all the shares have effected a partition of the family properties, by way of accepting and implementing the award by partition arrangement dated 6. 1903, marked as Exhibit A-2 on the side of the plaintiff expressly agreeing and stipulating there-in that the trusteeship vested in each of them should not be alienated. They have again agreed and provided that the share of the hereditary trustees vested in their branches should be enjoyed by each having a half share therein and that the temples should be administered properly. The first defendant is the sole representative of ‘B’ branch entitled to half share of the hereditary trusteeship. The plaintiff being the only son of Chinna Ramanuja Iyengar and the second son being the only son of Rajagopal entitled to ‘D’ branch are each entitled to one half share. As to the other half share of the hereditary trusteeship, it is stated that the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are the joint hereditary trustees. However, no arrangement has been arrived at in regard to the ir turn of management and administration of the temples. The plaintiff states that his father Ramanuja Iyengar has sold his hereditary trusteeship to one Ethirajammal, paternal grandmother of first defendant by sale deed dated 211. 1924 to
