The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revocation of a settlement deed and the extinguishment of a trust must be in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Trust Act.

Common Judgement:

The first and second defendants in O.S.No.373 of 1989 have filed the Second Appeal No.1570 of 1995 and 542 of 1995 respectively. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed the suit in O.S.No.373 of 1989 against the appellant District Collector in Second Appeal No.1570 of 1995 and 542 of 1995 arraying them as defendants 1 and 2 respectively praying for a declaration of title in respect of the suit properties and delivery of possession. The suit property consisting of six items of punja lands stating that they belonged to one Periyasamy Nadar and his two sons, namely, Balamuruga Nadar who is the father of the second plaintiff and Palaniyappa Nadar. The first plaintiff is also the son of Periyasamy Nadar. The said Periyasamy Nadar as well as Balagurusamy Nadar have died and his son is the second plaintiff.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the said Periyasamy Nadar and his sons Palaniyappa Nadar and Balagurusamy Nadar have executed a settlement deed on 24.06.1953 marked as Ex.A.1 in favour of the then District Board. The said property is now transferred in the name of the District Collector, appellant in S.A.No.1570 of 1995 and under the said settlement deed the property was given to the District Board for the purpose of starting a High School and the same was accepted by the District Board in the resolution dated 27.06.1953 marked as Ex.A.2. However, the purpose for which the property was given in favour of the first defendant was not given effect to and school was not stated.

3. On the other hand, the District Board has purchased some other property in the same area and started a school. Therefore, the purpose for which the property was given has not been effected and it remains a vacant land. In those circumstances, the first plaintiff has requested the first defendant to return the property by a letter dated 08.04.1983. The first defendant by reply dated 23.05.1953 marked as Ex.A.3 directed the first plaintiff to approach the District Revenue Officer to get back the property. In spite of his efforts the property was not returned. The Tahsildar of Cuddalore by his letter dated 30.08.1983 marked as Ex.A.4 addressed to the first defendant stated that the property is not used for any other purpose and therefore, the same can be given to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have given notice for possession and ultimately the plaintiffs have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.8631 of 1985 in which by an order dated 23.08.1985 marked as Ex.A.8, this Court having found that for 32 years the purpose for which the property was given, has not been achieved and therefore, it is open to the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court and with that observation the writ petition was dismissed stating that the dismissal shall not be construed against the plaintiff.

4. It was thereafter, the first plaintiff by a document dated 06.09.1985 marked as Ex.A.9 has revoked the settlement deed and informed the same to the first defendant. The second defendant who is in occupation of a portion of the said property is not entitled to be in possession and therefore, the present suit is filed for a declaration and possession. The first defendant has resisted the suit stating that even though it is true that no school has been constructed and another school has been started in another place which requires extension and therefore, the first defendant proposes to use the suit property for the same purpose. The first defendant denies the possession in favour of the second defendant and it is the case of the first defendant that they are in possession of the entire property and the revocation of settlement deed is not valid. The second defendant has also filed a written statement in the same line.

5. The Trial Court after elaborate trial has dismissed the suit holding that the settlement deed marked as Ex.A.1 cannot be revoked under Ex.A.9 and the plaintiffs themselves have not approached the Civil Court for the purpose of cancellation